Introduction
Plato’s political philosophy reminds us that “the good of the state depends on the goodness of its laws.” The submission of the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) Report to His Excellency President Mahama has rightly stimulated widespread public discussion and critical engagement.
In my earlier article titled, “Key Observations on the CRC Report,” dated 23rd December 2025, I examined key aspects of the report, acknowledging its strengths while highlighting areas of concern that merit closer scrutiny. However, the Constitutional Review Committee Report spans a wide range of complex issues touching on governance, accountability, and fundamental human rights making it impossible to address all concerns comprehensively in a single article.
Read also: Key observations on the Constitutional Review Commission Report submitted to President Mahama
This follow-up article continues that engagement by drawing attention to further constitutional, human rights and governance issues that warrant careful reflection. While acknowledging the CRC’s diligence and reformist intent, this article seeks to deepen the national conversation by critically examining selected recommendations of the Committee. These criticisms are offered in the spirit of constructive engagement, reflecting the belief that rigorous debate and careful refinement are essential to achieving constitutional reforms that are enduring and responsive to Ghana’s democratic aspirations.
Immunities After Ceasing to be President
Under Ghanaian law, criminal offences are generally not statute-barred. Where an act amounts to a criminal offence at the time it is committed, prosecution may be commenced at any time, regardless of how much time has elapsed. This principle applies uniformly to all citizens and is rooted in the understanding that public wrongs do not lose their character merely because time has elapsed. Against this settled legal backdrop, the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) has itself acknowledged the need to reduce exceptional privileges associated with the presidency, notably by recommending that the President should pay income tax, contrary to the historical position where the office of the President enjoyed tax exemptions. This recommendation is premised on the ideals of equity, accountability, and equality before the law, and reflects an intention to align the President more closely with the legal obligations borne by ordinary citizens.
It is therefore difficult to reconcile this progressive move toward fiscal accountability with the CRC’s simultaneous recommendation that criminal proceedings against a former President be limited to a four-year period after leaving office for acts done or committed in his personal capacity. While the Committee recommends that civil proceedings may be instituted against a former President at any time after he ceases to hold office subject only to the applicable statutory limitation periods it proposes that criminal proceedings be restricted to a four-year window.
This stands in sharp contrast to the position of ordinary citizens, who remain indefinitely liable to criminal prosecution. The proposed limitation would confer on the President a special shield from criminal accountability, notwithstanding the Commission’s own recognition that the presidency should no longer be insulated from general legal obligations such as taxation. This dual approach raises a fundamental question of constitutional coherence: if the President is to be treated as an ordinary citizen for the purposes of taxation, why should he be treated as an exceptional citizen when it comes to criminal culpability?
Total Number of Ministers (Article 78(2))
One of the most persistent governance challenges under Ghana’s Fourth Republic has been the steady expansion of the size of government, driven largely by the proliferation of Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Regional Ministers, Special Assistants, and Presidential Staffers. Successive administrations have justified these large teams as necessary for effective governance, yet the result has often been bloated executive structures, high public expenditure, and overlapping responsibilities. It is against this background that the Committee has recommended an amendment to Article 78(2) of the Constitution to introduce a numerical ceiling on ministerial appointments. Under the proposal, the total number of Ministers of State including Deputy Ministers and Regional Ministers shall not exceed three times the number of Cabinet Ministers. Since Article 76(1) caps Cabinet Ministers at nineteen, the total number of Ministers of State would be limited to 57.
The recommendation appears to be a bold and necessary intervention. However, the Committee further recommends that where a President wishes to exceed the stated ceiling, he may do so by furnishing Parliament with written justification and obtaining prior approval by a simple majority of Members of Parliament. This raises an immediate and troubling question: why impose a ceiling, only to provide an easy constitutional escape from it? In reality, every President can justify more ministers. Government business is inherently complex, and arguments such as expanded development needs, new policy priorities, sectoral specialization, or national emergencies are always available. These justifications are difficult to refute, and politically persuasive, particularly when advanced by a sitting President.
The Committee appears to rely on Parliament as the principal safeguard against abuse. Yet this reliance is problematic in Ghana’s constitutional context. Parliament is often controlled by the President’s own party, and party discipline makes it unlikely that Members of Parliament will reject presidential requests for additional appointments. The requirement of approval by a simple majority further weakens this check, effectively ensuring that the President’s preference will prevail in most cases.
It was essential for the Committee not only to introduce a ceiling but also to place a clear cap on the number of additional appointments that may be approved, in order to prevent the Executive from exploiting the exception and thereby undermining the purpose of the reform. Equally concerning is the Committee’s failure to address the size of the presidential staffers and Special Assistants at the Office of the President, which has become a parallel route for expanding executive appointments and inflating public expenditure beyond constitutional scrutiny.
MPs Engagement with Constituents
The Committee’s recommendation to amend Chapter Ten of the Constitution to require Members of Parliament, during each recess, to hold at least one in-person and non-partisan town-hall engagement with their constituents is a commendable and progressive addition. It strengthens participatory democracy, deepens accountability, and provides a structured platform for constituents to engage directly with their representatives on national and local issues outside the partisan atmosphere of Parliament.
However, while the intent of the proposal is laudable, the recommendation is incomplete in that it fails to address how the cost of organizing and hosting such engagements will be handled. Issues such as funding sources, allowable expenditure, accountability for funds, and whether costs will be borne by the State, Parliament, political parties, Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Chief Executives (MMDCE), or the Members of Parliament personally have not been clarified. Without clear provisions on financing, the implementation of this requirement may lead to inconsistencies, inequities across constituencies, or potential abuse.
It is therefore important that any constitutional amendment of this nature is accompanied by explicit guidelines on cost management to ensure sustainability, transparency, and uniform application across all constituencies.
Contempt of Parliament
The Committee’s recommendation at page 32 on contempt of parliament is a positive and commendable step toward strengthening constitutional protections for freedom of speech, expression, and media freedom. By clearly subordinating Parliament’s contempt powers to Articles 21(1)(a) and 162, it helps prevent the misuse of parliamentary authority to silence criticism and reinforces the principle that public officials must tolerate robust scrutiny.
Directing aggrieved Members of Parliament to seek redress through defamation suits, and Parliament through the National Media Commission, aligns with due process and democratic accountability. However, while the recommendation effectively addresses abuses arising from parliamentary contempt, it fails to capture similar and equally troubling practices by other political actors who deploy state security agencies against citizens, journalists, and activists for exercising free speech. Without extending comparable safeguards to curb the use of police, intelligence officers, or other security institutions as tools of intimidation, the protection remains partial.
For the reform to be truly comprehensive, it should be complemented by clear constitutional or statutory limits on the involvement of security agencies in matters that are fundamentally about expression, opinion, and dissent in a democratic society, with an explicit clarification that where reputational harm is alleged, the proper avenue for redress is a civil defamation suit rather than criminal processes, and that the offence of offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace and the publication of false news should be critically reviewed to prevent its misuse as a tool for suppressing free speech.
Multiple Citizenship and Political Eligibility
I align with the Committee’s recommendation regarding the proposed amendments to Articles 8 and 94 of the Constitution. The move to replace dual citizenship with multiple citizenship and to limit disqualifications arising from such status to only the offices of President and Vice President as well as for Parliament to enact legislation establishing comprehensive integrity, conflict-of-interest, security vetting, and disclosure regimes for all public office holders is a welcome clarification.
Likewise, affirming that multiple citizenship does not, by itself, bar a citizen from holding other elective or appointive offices, and removing it as a disqualification for Parliament, ensures that all Ghanaians, regardless of multiple nationality, have equal eligibility subject to standard criteria of age, competence, integrity, and general eligibility. This promotes inclusivity and fairness.
However, I note a gap in the proposal. The current recommendation does not include provisions to restrict such public office holders or former public office holders from travelling outside Ghana to evade accountability. Such a provision is critical to prevent situations where individuals could evade accountability or prosecution by remaining abroad.
This concern is especially relevant for individuals holding multiple citizenships, including those of countries such as the USA, UK, France, or Russia, which assert the right to protect their nationals abroad. Without mechanisms to ensure that accountability processes cannot be circumvented, the integrity and effectiveness of the proposed constitutional and legislative framework could be compromised. There should be measures to safeguard accountability, ensuring that all public office holders remain fully subject to Ghanaian laws both during and after their tenure in office.
The Right to Housing
The proposed constitutional amendment on the Right to Housing is highly commendable as it places a clear and enforceable obligation on the State to prevent homelessness in the context of compulsory acquisition, forced eviction, urban redevelopment, slum clearance, or disaster-induced displacement. By requiring the State to provide suitable alternative accommodation consistent with human dignity, it strengthens protections for vulnerable populations and aligns with international human rights standards. However, a practical challenge may emerge.
Guaranteeing a strong right to housing could unintentionally encourage migration from rural areas to urban centers in search of employment or better economic opportunities, resulting in increased settlement in slums or informal areas. A case in point is the phenomenon of female head porters popularly referred to as kayayei. Once these areas are occupied, they can become difficult for the State to manage, as addressing evictions imposes significant social and financial burdens on government resources.
Another challenge that I envisage is the lack of clear post-service housing transition policies for public officers, leaving many retirees dependent on official accommodation. Additionally, guaranteeing housing protections places financial and logistical burdens on the State and may be abused, as former occupants may invoke housing rights to delay lawful eviction, weakening accountability and public confidence. Ultimately, while strengthening the right to housing promotes fairness and social justice, its effectiveness depends on complementary policies that balance individual protection with public interest, administrative efficiency, and sustainable urban development.
The Right to Health
While the recommendation to enshrine access to emergency medical treatment as a constitutional right is commendable and seeks to address the tragic loss of lives in Ghana due to denial of care, its practical implementation raises significant concerns. The persistent “no bed syndrome,” coupled with the unavailability of medical personnel and critical healthcare resources in public hospitals, underscores the reality that even committed medical practitioners may be unable to provide emergency care due to systemic constraints.
Making emergency treatment an absolute constitutional obligation without corresponding investment in healthcare infrastructure, staffing, equipment, and supplies risks placing practitioners in untenable positions and may give rise to legal and ethical conflicts. Any constitutional or legislative provision must therefore be accompanied by clear and enforceable State obligations to expand healthcare capacity and provide legal safeguards for medical personnel. This balanced approach would protect citizens’ right to health while ensuring that medical practitioners are not unfairly burdened for failures arising from institutional and resource deficiencies.
Persons with Disability
Shakespeare’s timeless words remind us that every human being embodies inherent dignity and profound potential. As he writes in Hamlet: “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty!” These words echo across centuries, challenging us to build a society where such worth is recognised, respected, and reflected in our systems, infrastructure, and attitudes especially for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Nearly two decades after the passage of Act 715, Ghana has made some notable strides in disability inclusion.
Awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities has grown, disability-focused organizations are more visible and organized, and certain public institutions have begun implementing accessibility measures. Schools and universities are increasingly accommodating students with special needs, while some workplaces are slowly adopting inclusive hiring practices.
However, for many Ghanaians with disabilities, the promise of full inclusion remains elusive. Implementation gaps persist across critical areas such as public infrastructure, transportation, healthcare, and employment. Many streets, public buildings, and transport systems remain physically inaccessible, while stigma and negative societal attitudes continue to limit opportunities and social participation. The Committee is highly commended for its bold, progressive, and rights-centred proposals to strengthen Article 29 of the Constitution in relation to accessibility for persons with disabilities.
The Committee is further commended for proposing an express constitutional duty requiring all publicly funded infrastructure and public–private partnership projects to undergo rigorous accessibility safeguards, including pre-construction disability access audits, mandatory compliance certification prior to occupancy or use, and periodic post-completion reviews.
Finally, the recommendation that no public funds should be lawfully disbursed for infrastructure that fails to meet minimum constitutional accessibility standards demonstrates strong fiscal accountability and reinforces the principle that public resources must not be used to entrench exclusion or discrimination. I commend the Committee for this truly commendable recommendation.
Key Reforms on Land Acquisition and Mineral Revenue
The Committee’s proposals on land acquisition and mineral revenue allocation are both progressive and forward-thinking. The recommended amendments to Article 20 ensure that compulsorily acquired land is used strictly for public purposes within a defined period, with clear reversion rights for original owners if the land is underutilized. By prohibiting speculative acquisition and requiring a publicly accessible register, the reforms strengthen transparency, accountability, and protection of citizens’ rights. Equally significant is the proposal to allocate up to 3% of mineral revenue to the communities where resources are extracted.
Managed by a representative board, this fund aims to address local infrastructure, human development, and environmental needs while ensuring inclusive oversight. These reforms reflect a strong commitment to fairness, social justice, and responsible governance, setting a benchmark for equitable land and resource management.
Notwithstanding the commendable effort and reformist ambition reflected in the CRC Report, its proposals must be subjected to sustained public scrutiny to ensure that they strengthen democratic accountability, protect fundamental rights, and reinforce institutional integrity.
If Ghana is to emerge from this review process with a constitutional framework that is resilient, just, and responsive to the aspirations of its people, then the refinement of the CRC’s recommendations must be guided by discernment, restraint, and a shared commitment to the public good. Only then can our laws, consistent with Plato’s conception of justice as the ordering of society toward the common good, become true instruments of lasting national good, advancing meaningful and sustainable progress for Ghana. God bless our homeland, Ghana, and make our nation great and strong.
References
Constitutional Review Committee Report 2025
1992 Constitution of Ghana
About the Author
