Independent national commentator and KNUST Professor of Physics, Eric K. K. Abavare, has described the proposed constitutional reforms contained in the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) Report as a significant departure from the 1992 Constitution, arguing that the scale of the recommendations goes far beyond minor amendments.
In the latest instalment of his constitutional review series, titled “The Deviation Audit: How Far Has the CRC Strayed from 1992?”, Prof. Abavare said his assessment places the overall recommendations at about 7 on a 0-to-10 scale of distance from the 1992 Constitution.
He stressed, however, that the scoring system is not intended as a scientific measurement but rather as a citizen’s yardstick for assessing the extent to which the CRC’s proposals alter the constitutional arrangements approved by Ghanaians.
According to him, the exercise involved placing the CRC Report and the 1992 Constitution side by side and assessing each major proposal against the specific constitutional provision it seeks to amend.
He said the proposals were assessed using four broad categories: “Minor tweak,” “Substantial change,” “Fundamental departure,” and “Reversal of a core principle.”
“This week I pause and ask a plain question: how far has the CRC actually travelled from 1992?” he wrote.
Prof. Abavare explained that after spending the first three weeks examining different branches and aspects of the State, he considered it necessary to step back and conduct a broader assessment of the CRC’s recommendations.
He said the exercise was aimed at determining, not from political rhetoric but from the actual constitutional text, how far the review process has moved from the constitutional settlement adopted in 1992.
According to Prof. Abavare’s assessment, five of the CRC Report’s nine clusters fall within what he described as “fundamental departure” territory.
He highlighted the local government cluster as one of the most significant areas of departure, arguing that some of the proposals could amount to a near-reversal of constitutional arrangements that have been in place since the 1988/1992 decentralisation settlement.
Among the proposals he identified as particularly significant are changes concerning the vesting of public lands in the President, the appointment of Metropolitan, Municipal and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs), the President’s tax exemption, and the eligibility of dual citizens to serve as Members of Parliament.
He argued that the proposals in these areas do not merely make technical adjustments to the existing constitutional framework but seek to alter some of its underlying principles.
“One Local Government is a near-reversal of the 1988/1992 settlement,” he stated.
He further argued that the proposal to change the constitutional arrangement under which public lands are vested in the President would constitute a major departure from the existing framework.
Similarly, he pointed to the proposal concerning the appointment of MMDCEs by the President as another significant change to the existing system of local governance.
Prof. Abavare said his cumulative assessment places the CRC Report at approximately 7 out of 10 in terms of its distance from the 1992 Constitution.
He emphasised that the score should not be interpreted as a precise scientific calculation, but as an analytical tool designed to help citizens understand the magnitude of the proposed changes.
“In aggregate, on a 0-to-10 scale, the Report sits at about a 7,” he said.
He argued that such a score indicates that the CRC proposals amount to a substantial constitutional revision, rather than a collection of minor amendments.
“That is not a tweak,” he wrote, describing the recommendations as “a substantial constitutional revision — bigger than any single amendment since 1996, smaller than a wholesale rewrite.”
Despite his assessment that the CRC has proposed sweeping changes, Prof. Abavare said the Committee has not necessarily stepped outside the constitutional framework altogether.
Instead, he described the process as one in which the Committee has made extensive changes within the existing constitutional structure.
“The Committee has stayed within the four corners of the 1992 document. But it has moved a great deal of furniture around inside those corners,” he stated.
The observation suggests that, in his view, the CRC’s proposals retain the basic constitutional framework of the Fourth Republic while seeking to significantly alter how some of its institutions, powers and principles operate.
Prof. Abavare said the magnitude of the proposed changes also raises important questions about the constitutional procedure that would be required to implement them.
He specifically questioned whether fundamental departures from the 1992 constitutional settlement could properly be implemented through what the CRC has proposed as a “semi-entrenched” category requiring a 75 per cent parliamentary majority.
According to him, a constitutional revision of the scale identified in his audit cannot simply be channelled through parliamentary approval where the Constitution requires more extensive public participation.
“A revision of this size cannot be delivered entirely through the CRC’s proposed ‘semi-entrenched’ shortcut of a 75 per cent parliamentary vote,” he argued.
He warned that any attempt by Parliament to place fundamental constitutional changes within the semi-entrenched category in order to avoid a referendum could generate significant legal and political difficulties.
“If Parliament tries to move fundamental departures into that tier to sidestep a referendum, the road will get rough very quickly,” he said.
Prof. Abavare said the latest commentary is intended as a preview of a more detailed assessment of the CRC’s proposals.
He indicated that the full “Deviation Audit”, including tables, individual scores and his aggregate assessment, would provide a more detailed breakdown of how the various recommendations compare with the 1992 Constitution.
The assessment forms part of his continuing analysis of the CRC Report and its implications for Ghana’s constitutional and governance framework.
The debate over the CRC’s recommendations comes as stakeholders continue to examine whether the proposed reforms should be treated as amendments to the existing constitutional order or as changes substantial enough to require a broader constitutional process, including possible referenda in areas where the Constitution requires direct approval by voters.
By 1960news.com
