Here is the rewritten article, structured with clean HTML, optimized for SEO, and expanded with pedagogical context to meet the length and depth requirements.

Martin Kpebu Rejects CRC Proposal to Increase Presidential Term: A Defense of Ghana’s 4-Year Cycle

Introduction

In a significant development for Ghana’s constitutional future, prominent private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has voiced strong opposition to a proposal by the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) to extend the presidential term of office. The debate centers on a fundamental aspect of democratic governance: the balance between allowing sufficient time for governance and ensuring regular accountability through elections. As the CRC submits its final report to President John Dramani Mahama, the recommendation to potentially shift from a four-year to a five-year term has sparked immediate and intense public discourse.

Kpebu’s rejection is not merely a casual opinion; it is a robust legal and political critique rooted in the principles of democratic oversight. By describing the proposal as “unacceptable” and emphatically stating “Extending the 4-year term to a 5-year term is a NOT NOT,” he has drawn a clear line in the sand. This article analyzes the implications of this proposal, the arguments for and against term extensions, and what this means for the future of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.

Key Points

Background

To understand the gravity of Martin Kpebu’s statement, one must look at the history of Ghana’s constitutional framework. The current 1992 Constitution was drafted to ensure a break from the era of military dictatorships and to establish a stable democratic dispensation. A cornerstone of this constitution is Article 66, which stipulates that a president shall hold office for a term of four years, with a limit of two terms.

The Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) was established to examine the functioning of the 1992 Constitution and propose amendments to close loopholes and improve governance. Chaired by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, the committee has been tasked with a comprehensive review of governance structures, the powers of state institutions, and the tenure of elected officials.

On Monday, December 22, 2025, the committee officially presented its final report to President John Dramani Mahama at the Jubilee House. Among the various proposals contained in the report, the suggestion to extend the presidential tenure has emerged as the most contentious. Historically, attempts to alter executive term limits in Africa have often been viewed with suspicion, as they are frequently seen as precursors to extending power indefinitely. Kpebu’s intervention taps into this historical sensitivity, emphasizing the need to preserve the checks and balances established in 1992.

Analysis

The Argument for the Status Quo: Accountability and Oversight

Martin Kpebu’s rejection of the five-year term proposal is grounded in the legal and political theory of accountability. His argument posits that a four-year term is sufficient for a sitting president to implement key policies and campaign promises. In the realm of political science, a four-year cycle is widely regarded as a “sweet spot” that prevents leaders from becoming too detached from the electorate while giving them enough time to navigate the complexities of governance.

Kpebu warns that extending the term to five years could “undermine democratic oversight.” This is a critical point. A longer term means a longer period between elections, effectively reducing the frequency with which the citizenry can formally express their approval or disapproval of the government’s performance. If a president serves a five-year term, the “electoral sanction”—the threat of being voted out—is delayed by 25% compared to a four-year term. Kpebu argues that this delay weakens the mechanism for holding leaders responsible.

The Risk of Constitutional Erosion

While the CRC’s intent may be to improve governance, Kpebu’s stance highlights the danger of “constitutional tinkering.” In many jurisdictions, changes to term limits are often the first step toward authoritarian consolidation. By advocating for the preservation of the four-year term, Kpebu is prioritizing the long-term stability of Ghana’s democracy over short-term administrative convenience.

The legal practitioner’s blunt use of the phrase “NOT NOT” serves as a rhetorical device to signal an absolute veto on the idea. It suggests that the proposal is not just a bad idea, but a non-starter that threatens the democratic contract between the government and the governed. This analysis suggests that the debate is not merely about the number of years, but about the philosophy of power: should power be held for longer to ensure “continuity,” or should it be checked frequently to ensure “responsibility”? Kpebu firmly sides with the latter.

Practical Advice

For citizens, policymakers, and legal analysts following this debate, here are practical steps to engage with the constitutional review process effectively:

• Understand the Current Constitution: Familiarize yourself with Article 66 of the 1992 Constitution, which currently defines the four-year presidential term and the two-term limit.
• Review the CRC Report: Seek out the full text of the Constitutional Review Committee’s report. Understanding the full scope of proposed changes is vital to contextualize the term extension proposal.
• Engage in Civic Discourse: Use town halls, social media, and community meetings to discuss the implications of a five-year term. Ask: Does a five-year term benefit the average citizen, or does it benefit the incumbent?
• Monitor Legislative Action: Constitutional amendments in Ghana require a referendum or a specific legislative process. Stay informed about any bills introduced in Parliament related to this review.
• Consult Legal Experts: If you are part of a civil society organization or governance body, seek independent legal opinions on how term extension proposals align with democratic best practices in West Africa.

FAQ

Conclusion

The intervention by Martin Kpebu regarding the Constitutional Review Committee’s proposal serves as a vital checkpoint in Ghana’s democratic journey. By firmly rejecting the extension of the presidential term to five years, Kpebu reinforces the importance of the four-year electoral cycle as a mechanism of accountability. While the CRC’s broader goal is to strengthen Ghana’s governance structures, Kpebu’s critique reminds us that the duration of executive power is a sensitive lever that should not be adjusted lightly.

As the nation digests the CRC’s final report, the conversation sparked by Kpebu will likely influence how Ghanaians view the balance between administrative continuity and democratic freedom. Ultimately, the defense of the four-year term is a defense of the voter’s power to hire and fire their leaders at predictable, manageable intervals.