Introduction

On Monday, December 22, 2025, a significant development emerged from the Jubilee House regarding the governance framework of the nation. The Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) officially submitted its report to the President, headlining a proposal to extend the presidential term of office. This recommendation suggests a transition from the current four-year cycle to a five-year term, a move intended to reshape the political landscape and policy implementation.

This proposal is not merely a change in dates; it represents a fundamental discussion on governance, stability, and democratic accountability. Led by Chairman Prof. Prempeh, the committee argues that this extension is essential for long-term national development. However, as with any proposed amendment to the supreme law of the land, it invites rigorous scrutiny and public debate. This article explores the details of this proposal, the rationale behind it, and what it means for the future of the country’s constitutional democracy.

Key Points

Background

The Role of the Constitutional Review Committee

The Constitutional Review Committee is a body established to examine the functioning of the nation’s constitution. Its mandate typically involves identifying gaps, ambiguities, or areas requiring reform to ensure the constitution remains relevant and effective in governing the state. Over the years, the committee has engaged with various stakeholders, civil society organizations, and legal experts to gather insights on how the governance structure can be improved.

The submission of the report at the Jubilee House marks a culmination of this extensive process. By presenting these findings to the President, the committee initiates the formal process of considering constitutional amendments. The proposal regarding the presidential term is one of several reforms aimed at strengthening the architecture of the state.

Current Constitutional Provisions

Under the current constitutional framework, the President is elected for a four-year term and is eligible for a second term. This system was designed to ensure regular accountability to the electorate. However, proponents of the change argue that the four-year cycle, particularly the “mid-term” pressure, often forces administrations to prioritize short-term political survival over long-term strategic planning. The debate centers on whether the current duration is sufficient for the complex task of national development.

Analysis

Rationale for a Five-Year Term

The core argument presented by Prof. Prempeh is centered on policy continuity and governance stability. In a four-year system, a newly elected government typically spends the first year settling in and the last year campaigning for re-election. This effectively leaves only two years for the implementation of major policies. By extending the term to five years, the committee argues that an administration gains a more realistic window to “design, implement, and consolidate” long-term national strategies without the immediate distraction of an impending election.

This structural change is viewed by some experts as a way to insulate governance from the “election cycle economy,” where economic policies might be manipulated to favor short-term electoral gains rather than sustainable growth. A five-year term could theoretically allow for more prudent fiscal management and infrastructure projects that require time to yield results.

Institutional Accountability vs. Electoral Accountability

A critical aspect of the committee’s proposal is the assertion that a longer term does not equate to less accountability. Prof. Prempeh emphasized that the proposal is anchored on strengthening institutions and improving checks and balances. The logic here is that if the executive branch is given more time to govern, the oversight mechanisms (such as the legislature, judiciary, and anti-corruption agencies) must be empowered to ensure that the power is not abused.

If the President is in office for five years, the “safety valves” of democracy—such as independent auditing, parliamentary oversight, and judicial review—become even more vital. The success of such a system depends heavily on whether these institutions are truly independent and capable of holding the executive accountable throughout the extended duration.

Comparative Perspectives

Globally, many stable democracies operate on different timelines. For instance, France moved to a five-year presidential term in 2002 to align the presidential and legislative elections, aiming for political stability. Conversely, the United States maintains a four-year term with a two-term limit. The effectiveness of a term length often depends on the specific political culture and institutional safeguards of a country. The Ghanaian context, with its history of democratic transitions, makes this proposal a subject of intense interest for political scientists and constitutional scholars.

Practical Advice

Understanding the Amendment Process

It is important for the public to understand that this proposal is not yet law. Changing the presidential term requires a rigorous process outlined in the Constitution. This typically involves:

1. Parliamentary Approval: The proposal must be debated and passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
2. Referendum: In many jurisdictions, a change to an entrenched clause (such as the term of the President) requires a national referendum where the majority of voters approve the change.

Citizens interested in this issue should follow the parliamentary debates and look out for official announcements regarding any potential referendum.

How to Stay Informed and Engage

As this story develops, misinformation can spread easily. To stay accurately informed:

• Follow Official Sources: Monitor statements from the Jubilee House, the Parliament of Ghana, and the Constitutional Review Commission.
• Read the Full Report: Once made public, accessing the full text of the CRC’s recommendations will provide context that news headlines may miss.
• Civic Participation: Engage in town hall meetings and discussions to understand how this change might impact local governance.

FAQ

Conclusion

The proposal by the Constitutional Review Committee to extend the presidential term to five years is a pivotal moment in the nation’s governance discourse. While the promise of greater policy stability and long-term planning is appealing, it raises fundamental questions about the balance between executive power and democratic accountability.

As the Jubilee House reviews the report and the public begins to engage with the concept, the debate will likely center on trust: trust in the government to use the extra time wisely, and trust in the institutions designed to keep them in check. Whether this proposal translates into a constitutional amendment remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly sets the stage for a robust national conversation about the future of the country’s leadership structure.