HKP Committee’s Article 290 Proposal: A Trojan Horse for Presidential Term Extension – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

In Ghana’s evolving constitutional landscape, the HKP Committee’s Article 290 proposal has emerged as a subject of intense public debate. Ostensibly designed to streamline constitutional amendments, this proposal carries hidden implications that could fundamentally alter the balance of power. At its core, the proposal threatens to undermine entrenched safeguards protecting the presidential term limit—a cornerstone of Ghana’s democratic stability.

While a referendum on extending the presidential term from four to five years garners headlines, a quieter but equally consequential change is being proposed: the removal of Article 66(1) from the entrenched provisions of the 1992 Constitution via an amendment to Article 290. This strategic reclassification would shift the amendment process from a public referendum to a simple parliamentary majority, effectively bypassing the will of the people.

This article dissects the proposal, explains its mechanisms, and underscores why a “No” vote on term extension alone may not suffice to protect Ghana’s constitutional integrity.

Key Points

Background

The 1992 Constitution and Entrenched Provisions

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution was crafted with robust safeguards to prevent abrupt or undemocratic changes to its foundational principles. Central to this design is Article 290, which delineates the process for constitutional amendments.

Under the current framework, certain provisions—known as “entrenched provisions”—cannot be amended without a national referendum. This includes all provisions under Chapter 8 (The Executive), of which Article 66(1) is a key component.

Article 66(1) states: “An individual elected as President shall, subject to clause(3) of this article, hold office for a term of 4 years starting from the date on which he is sworn in as President.”

This entrenchment ensures that any change to the presidential term requires direct democratic approval, acting as a bulwark against executive overreach.

The HKP Committee and Its Mandate

The HKP Committee, chaired by Professor Kwesi Prempeh, was established to review and propose reforms to Ghana’s constitutional framework. While its stated goal is to enhance governance and efficiency, its recommendations on Article 290 have raised alarms among constitutional experts and civil society.

The committee’s report, released in late 2025, proposes a sweeping reclassification of constitutional provisions into three tiers: entrenched, semi-entrenched, and non-entrenched.

Analysis

The Proposed Reclassification

The HKP Committee’s proposal seeks to amend Article 290 to redefine which provisions require a referendum. According to the report, only a select list of provisions would remain entrenched, including:

• Articles 1 to 4 (National Sovereignty, Republican Status, etc.)
• Articles 12, 17, 21(1), and 23 (Fundamental Rights)
• Articles 57(1), 58, and 66(2) (Executive Powers and Oath)
• Article 93(2) (Parliament Composition)
• Articles 125 and 127 (Judiciary)
• And others focused on core democratic safeguards.

Notably, Article 66(1), which defines the presidential term, is absent from this list.

The Creation of “Semi-Entrenched” Provisions

The committee introduces a new category: “semi-entrenched” provisions. These would require approval by at least 75% of all Members of Parliament (200 MPs) to amend.

The proposed semi-entrenched list includes most of Chapter 5 (Fundamental Principles of State Policy) and Chapter 8 (The Executive), but explicitly excludes Article 66(1).

As stated in the report: “The Committee recommends that the following provisions shall become semi-entrenched… everything of Chapter 8 instead of Articles 57(1), 58 and 66…”

This omission is deliberate and consequential.

The Fate of Article 66(1)

With Article 66(1) excluded from both entrenched and semi-entrenched categories, it falls into the residual category: non-entrenched provisions.

According to paragraph 9.2 of the report: “The Committee further recommends that all remaining provisions of the Constitution not listed as entrenched or semi-entrenched shall continue to be amended as non-entrenched provisions in accordance with the existing requirement of approval by not less than two-thirds of all Members of Parliament.”

This means that once reclassified, Article 66(1) could be amended by a two-thirds majority (184 MPs), bypassing the need for a referendum.

The Strategic Implications

This reclassification is not merely procedural; it is strategic. By removing the presidential term limit from entrenched status, the proposal creates a pathway for future term extensions without direct public approval.

Even if the current public referendum on a five-year term is rejected, the constitutional framework for future attempts would already be weakened. A future parliament, potentially under different political dynamics, could extend the term with relative ease.

This undermines the principle of popular sovereignty and concentrates amendment power in the hands of elected representatives, who may not always align with the public interest.

Legal and Democratic Concerns

The proposal raises significant legal and democratic concerns:

• Democratic Deficit: It reduces the role of citizens in decisions that affect the core structure of governance.
• Precedent Setting: It establishes a precedent for reclassifying other entrenched provisions, potentially eroding other safeguards.
• Executive Influence: It increases the risk of executive influence over the amendment process, especially in systems where the ruling party commands a parliamentary majority.
• Constitutional Stability: It undermines the stability and predictability of the constitutional order.

Practical Advice

For Voters

If a referendum is held on constitutional amendments, voters should:

1. Read the Full Proposal: Understand not just the headline changes but the procedural shifts that enable them.
2. Vote on Article 290: A “No” vote on term extension is necessary but not sufficient. Voters must also reject changes to Article 290 that weaken entrenchment.
3. Support Civil Society: Engage with and support organizations monitoring constitutional reforms.
4. Stay Informed: Follow updates from reputable legal and civic education sources.

For Civil Society and Legal Experts

Advocacy Priorities:

• Launch public education campaigns on the implications of Article 290 changes.
• Urge Parliament to maintain the entrenched status of Article 66(1).
• Monitor the legislative process to ensure transparency and public participation.
• Publish analyses and position papers to inform public discourse.

For Lawmakers

Responsible Stewardship:

• Reject any proposal to remove Article 66(1) from entrenched status.
• Insist on maintaining robust safeguards for core constitutional provisions.
• Ensure that any constitutional reform undergoes thorough public consultation.
• Uphold the principle that changes to executive power require the highest level of democratic legitimacy.

FAQ

Conclusion

The HKP Committee’s Article 290 proposal represents a critical juncture for Ghana’s constitutional democracy. While framed as a technical reform, its implications are profound and far-reaching.

The proposal to reclassify Article 66(1) as a non-entrenched provision is not merely a procedural adjustment; it is a strategic move that could permanently alter the balance of power between the executive, the legislature, and the people.

Ghanaians must look beyond the surface of proposed changes and understand the mechanisms that enable them. Protecting the entrenched status of core provisions like the presidential term limit is essential to preserving the integrity of the 1992 Constitution.

A “No” vote on term extension is necessary, but it must be accompanied by a rejection of any attempt to weaken the constitutional safeguards that protect it. The future of Ghana’s democracy depends on vigilant citizenship and a commitment to the principles of popular sovereignty and constitutional stability.