By Reuben Hadzide for Sankofaonline: October 9,2025.
The Ghana National Council of Metropolitan Chicago (GNC) stands at crossroads. What should have been a moment of democratic renewal has instead become a quagmire of confusion, selective interpretation, and institutional hesitation. Reports reaching Sankofaonline.com indicate that both distinguished candidates who have offered themselves to serve as President, Dr. Eunice Cromwell and Mr. Effa Ameyaw, face challenges with clearance. Yet these challenges, upon closer inspection, reveal more about the council’s internal inconsistencies than the candidates themselves.
Mr. Ameyaw is alleged to have fallen short of the constitutionally mandated attendance threshold of more than 80%. Dr. Cromwell, on the other hand, boasts a flawless attendance record, 100%, but is said not to have met the three-year “central committee” membership requirement. However, this interpretation, if applied rigidly and without context, risks undermining not only her candidacy but the very credibility of the council’s governance.
Let us be clear: Dr. Cromwell is not a newcomer. She has served the council faithfully for six years as Business Manager, an executive role that demands diligence, institutional knowledge, and unwavering commitment. In 2023, she was nominated and approved by the council to serve as Vice President alongside President Kassim Abubakari. At the time of her nomination, the current interpretation means that she did not meet the three-year central committee membership requirement. Yet the council, in its wisdom, waived that rule. Why? Because the constitution is silent on executive members who are non-voting but serve in leadership capacities on the council . The council recognized her service, her competence, and her institutional continuity, and rightly so.
Now, to deny her clearance to run for President on the basis of a rule that was previously waived when she was running for Vice President , is not only inconsistent, it is unjust. The council cannot have it both ways. By approving her as Vice President, the council implicitly acknowledged her eligibility to act as President in the absence of the sitting President. That is not a ceremonial role; it is a constitutional function. If she was trusted to act as President, then she must be deemed qualified to run for the office itself.
Had tragedy struck and the President been unable to serve, it is Dr. Cromwell who would have constitutionally assumed the mantle of leadership, stepping in not by chance, but by the council’s own prior endorsement of her readiness to act as President.
This is not a loophole, it is a precedent. And precedents, once set, carry weight. To reverse course now would be to punish continuity, penalize service, and erode trust in the council’s own decisions. It sends a troubling message: that rules can be bent for convenience, but reimposed for obstruction. That a candidate can be deemed qualified one year and unqualified the next, not because of any lapse in service, but because of shifting interpretations.
Moreover, this election crisis unfolds against a backdrop of institutional vacancies. As of today, two critical positions, Treasurer and Sergeant-at-Arms, remain unfilled. These roles are not peripheral; they are essential to the council’s financial stewardship and procedural integrity. The longer they remain vacant, the more the council risks operational stagnation and reputational decline.
We at Sankofaonline.com urge the council to let cool heads prevail. This is not merely about one candidate, it is about the integrity of the council’s processes, the clarity of its constitution, and the future of Ghanaian civic engagement in Chicago. Recently, we called on members of the community, especially the youth, to join Ghanaian associations and participate in the council’s work. But how can they be inspired to serve if the rules appear arbitrary? If one can be qualified today and unqualified tomorrow?
Also Read: Lack Of Interest To Fill GNC Positions
Dr. Cromwell’s record speaks for itself. Her service is continuous, her commitment unquestioned, and her eligibility, by precedent and by reason, clear. Mr. Ameyaw, too, deserves a fair and transparent review of his attendance record, free from rumor and rooted in documented fact. The council must rise above technicalities and reaffirm its commitment to justice. It must honor those who have served with distinction and send a message to the community that fairness, not factionalism, will guide its future.
According to credible sources, the Secretary and principal council members are actively addressing discrepancies identified in the attendance records. A formal meeting has been scheduled to confront and resolve all outstanding issues surrounding the election process, an essential step toward restoring transparency, unity, and institutional credibility.
Also Read A call For Decency In The GNC Campaign
Let justice prevail. Let the council lead with wisdom. Let the community see that integrity still governs our beloved Ghana National Council of Metropolitan Chicago.
Sankofaonline.com
Article is well written and very thought provoking.
Yes the executives and the council at large needs to review all the circumstances and make the right decision for the sake of the image of the GNC and it’s future.
Well sad sankofaonline!!
And to deny Mr. Ameyaw bc of 80% attendance is wrong as well., you didn’t mention that. This is what happens when rules are broken or not followed and that is sad! If we are not going to follow the rules of the constitution, let’s not follow the rules of the constitution for all please.
Your argument lacks both reasoning and fairness. The article clearly states that records are still under review—meaning in his case, no final determination has been made. How could the writer assert what you’re claiming without verified documentation? Premature conclusions only deepen confusion and erode trust. If we’re serious about constitutional integrity, then let’s allow due process to speak before rushing to judgment.
If someone is running for president the constitution states that the candidate attendance needs to EXCEED 80%, so if someone is running for president should t we want the best from them ?
This article is very one-sided. The article points to a violation of the GNC’s constitution by both sides. However, the author of this article is advocating
that one party’s violation of the constitution should be ignored while the other party should not be ignored. What a flawed argument? This article clearly tilt to the advocacy of the author’s favourite candidate. Simply put, this is a biased article, cloaked in the guise of a call for peace sentiment, on part of the author. Outside influences will be the downfall of the GNC and this is a clear example of it. Violation of the constitution is a violation. One side should not be excused while the other side is held to account.
This article presents a singular perspective. This article highlights the constitutional concerns associated with both candidates. However, this article suggests that the constitutional breach by one candidate should be overlooked, while the other’s infraction ought to be addressed appropriately. This calls into question the fundamental principles of fairness that the author of this article asserts to be inviolable. The ambiguity that we are experiencing can be attributed to the GNC’s unwillingness to stick to its own constitution. The article further discusses established precedents. Despite what the author of this article would have one believe, bad precedents should never be mindlessly followed. External factors, such as the content of this article, could potentially lead to challenges for the GNC.