For far too long, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) has been grappling with a deficit in pragmatic leadership, decisive action, and strategic decision-making a shortfall that continues to undermine effective party building, organizational efficiency, and the sustainable management of the political machinery.

For decades, the National Secretariat has routinely disbursed significant sums to constituencies to finance local party organization during internal electoral processes polling station, electoral area, constituency, regional, national and presidential elections.

These allocations, often intended for transportation support and logistical assistance, are presented as essential interventions to ensure broad participation in internal democratic exercises.

However, in practice, the very delegates who receive these funds from the national party are simultaneously supported, often more generously, by aspirants competing in these elections. This raises a pressing and unavoidable question: Why should the National Secretariat spend scarce party resources on a function that aspirants are already fulfilling and in some cases, exceeding?

The logic of continuing this practice is untenable. The time to terminate this archaic, non-pragmatic approach is now. Every cedi spent duplicating support already provided by aspirants represents not only fiscal waste but also a failure of leadership to recalibrate the party’s internal processes for the realities of modern political competition.

The issue is even more acute in the context of the upcoming presidential election, scheduled for January 31, 2026.

The party is poised to spend millions transporting delegates to exercise their franchise. Yet history shows that presidential aspirants, as part of their campaign strategies, already allocate substantial funds for the same purpose.

These resources are often sufficient if not more than adequate to meet transportation needs.

Some within the party argue that National Secretariat funding is necessary to mitigate coercion and inducement from aspirants. This rationale, however, is deeply flawed and counterproductive.

The uncomfortable truth is that the party currently lacks the enforcement capacity to prevent aspirants from making these payments or to credibly sanction those who violate ethical standards.

In this context, duplicating aspirants’ spending only compounds financial inefficiency without addressing the root problem.

If the NPP is to consolidate its democratic credentials, safeguard its financial integrity, and project an image of disciplined governance, the National Secretariat must show leadership by ending this wasteful practice immediately.

The millions saved could be redirected towards strategic investments in grassroots mobilization, policy research, and long-term organizational capacity-building areas that will yield far greater dividends than perpetuating a system of electoral patronage.

Instead of clinging to outdated methods, the party’s strength must lie in its courage to adapt, reform, and set an example.

January 31, 2026, should not only mark the election of the next presidential candidate; it should also be remembered as the moment the NPP decisively chose prudence, discipline and strategic foresight over costly, self-defeating traditions.

Prof Freeman Danquah, University of Bradford