Stop using money to manipulate elections — Inusah Fuseini warns vote-buying politicians

Former Tamale Central Member of Parliament Inusah Fuseini has cautioned against the growing use of money to influence internal party elections, saying financial inducements threaten electoral integrity even when they fail to determine the eventual winner. He said the presence of vote-buying in the recent National Democratic Congress (NDC) constituency executive elections was troubling in itself, warning that political parties risk undermining democratic values when candidates use cash to court delegates.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, October 27, the former member of Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee said the outcome of the elections showed that spending more money did not necessarily translate into electoral victory. “When we produced our report, we said that we did not believe that the influence of the use of money would influence voters to cast their vote one way or the other.

But the fact that it was present was bad in itself,” he said. Mr Fuseini said voters could still exercise independent judgement despite attempts to influence their choices, adding that the experience should serve as a warning to politicians who believe money can secure electoral success. He welcomed comments by a person who had spoken against the practice, saying such a position could discourage candidates from relying on financial inducements to win votes.

He said the central concern was not simply whether a candidate who spent heavily won or lost, but whether the use of money had the potential to distort the electoral process. “What we are concerned with is the undue influence that has the potential to corrupt the outcome of elections that affects the integrity of elections,” he said. Mr Fuseini warned that the increasing reliance on money in internal party contests risked shifting attention away from the candidates’ competence, ideas and commitment to public service.

He said such a trend could also exclude candidates who lacked the financial resources to compete, regardless of their leadership qualities or support among party members. Voters’ conscience To illustrate his point, Mr Fuseini referred to the election results, arguing that some candidates who reportedly distributed more money than others did not win.

He mentioned Babar and Jamal while discussing the results, saying the outcome challenged the assumption that the candidate who spent the most would necessarily emerge victorious. He also cited the case of a candidate who received only one vote and, according to his account, had not given money to voters. “And again I go back to also there was one person who got only one vote, and that person never gave anything,” he said.

Mr Fuseini questioned whether the candidate’s failure to distribute money explained the result, while suggesting that voters retained the ability to make their own choices. “Is it because that person never gave anything that he got one vote, and who was this person who voted? That person was a voter of conscience who received but decided that he would act one way or the other and not be influenced by what he had received?” he said.

His comments highlight the distinction between the presence of financial inducements and their actual influence on voting decisions. Even where voters reject attempts to influence them, he suggested, the practice remains damaging to the credibility of elections. Safeguarding internal democracy The debate over vote-buying raises broader questions about the conduct of internal party elections and the ability of candidates without substantial financial resources to compete fairly.

Although Mr Fuseini said money might not always determine the outcome, he warned that its presence could compromise the integrity of the process and weaken confidence in party democracy. His remarks come at a time when political parties face recurring concerns about the role of cash and other inducements in contests for internal leadership positions.

Ensuring transparent elections, enforcing party rules and encouraging delegates to assess candidates on their leadership records and ideas are among the measures that can help strengthen internal democracy.