The High Court in Accra has dismissed as incompetent a suit seeking to halt the Ayawaso East by-election.

The action was brought by Democracy Hub, which cited alleged vote buying during the National Democratic Congress parliamentary primaries held on February 7, 2026.

The suit named the National Democratic Congress as the first defendant, the Electoral Commission as the second defendant and the Attorney-General as the third defendant.

Delivering his decision on March 2, the presiding judge, Justice Agyenim-Boateng, upheld arguments advanced by the NDC that the suit was defective. He consequently set aside the originating processes.

In its reliefs, Democracy Hub asked the court to quash the Electoral Commission’s recognition of Baba Jamal as the NDC candidate for the constituency and to restrain the Commission from accepting or acting on his nomination until a fresh primary is conducted in accordance with democratic principles.

The group also sought an order of mandamus directed at the second defendant to refuse to accept or act upon the nomination of the said candidate unless and until a primary conducted in accordance with democratic principles is held.

Additionally, Democracy Hub prayed the court for a declaration that the NDC primary was characterised by widespread vote buying, inducement and monetisation, and that relying on its outcome to present a candidate breaches Article 55(5) of the Constitution and Section 9 of the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574).

“A declaration that the parliamentary primary conducted by the 1st Defendant for the Ayawaso East Constituency, having been found to have been characterised by widespread vote buying, inducement and monetisation, did not conform to the democratic principles required under Article 55(5) of the Constitution, and that the continued reliance on the outcome thereof and the presentation of a candidate founded on that process constitute actions contrary to and inconsistent with the Constitution in violation of section 9 of the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574).”

Democracy Hub further argued that the party’s failure to address the alleged misconduct renders its actions inconsistent with constitutional and legal requirements.