A lecturer at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Prof. Eric K. K. Abavare, has urged Ghanaians to reject a recommendation to extend the presidential term from four to five years.
Prof. Abavare argues that Ghana’s current four-year presidential cycle is not a constitutional problem requiring urgent reform, describing the proposed extension as a solution to a problem that does not exist.
In an open appeal to public on the Constitutional Review Committee’s recommendation, which he says has been affirmed by President John Dramani Mahama, the lecturer warned that extending the presidential term could weaken one of the country’s most important mechanisms for holding governments accountable.
According to him, the proposal risks creating “a quiet erosion of accountability” under the guise of improving efficiency and giving governments more time to deliver on their programmes.
Prof. Abavare rejected the argument that Ghana’s four-year presidential term is too short for governments to effectively plan and implement policies.
He pointed to several democracies, including the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kenya and Liberia, which operate presidential systems with four-year electoral cycles.
He argued that governments in those countries are able to plan, legislate, develop infrastructure and deliver public services within four-year terms.
“If a four-year term can carry Washington, Nairobi and Brasília, it can certainly carry Accra,” he said.
The lecturer maintained that the fundamental challenge confronting Ghana is not the length of the presidential term but the quality of preparation, planning and execution by governments.
Prof. Abavare also challenged the argument that newly elected presidents require additional time to establish functional governments and begin implementing their policies.
He said anyone seeking the presidency should be adequately prepared before taking office.
According to him, presidential candidates should have their manifestos, cabinet arrangements, policy instruments and legislative priorities sufficiently developed before assuming the responsibilities of government.
He described these preparations as “minimum entry requirements” for anyone seeking the highest political office in the country.
The lecturer argued that asking Ghanaians to grant presidents an additional year because they need more time to establish themselves amounts to asking citizens to bear the cost of political unpreparedness.
Prof. Abavare further questioned the assumption that extending the presidential term would automatically improve government performance.
He said there was no credible evidence to demonstrate that presidents serving five- or six-year terms consistently deliver better roads, schools, healthcare systems, economic management or other public goods than those operating under four-year cycles.
Instead, he warned that longer political terms could create room for complacency, delayed reforms and prolonged consequences of poor policy decisions.
According to him, the pressure of an approaching election provides an important incentive for governments to remain responsive to citizens.
“Discipline in government comes from the pressure of the ballot box, not from a generous calendar,” he argued.
One of Prof. Abavare’s strongest objections centres on the possibility of a president serving two five-year terms.
Under Ghana’s current constitutional arrangement, a president can serve a maximum of two four-year terms.
He noted that this means citizens have an opportunity to pass judgment on a president after four years and, if dissatisfied, vote the government out.
However, if the presidential term is increased to five years while retaining the two-term limit, a president could remain in office for up to 10 years.
Prof. Abavare described this as a significant increase in the amount of time citizens could be required to endure an administration they consider ineffective.
He argued that the consequences of poor governance can be immediate and far-reaching, particularly in an economy where a single budget cycle can affect the value of the cedi, employment opportunities and the cost of living.
He therefore considers the four-year accountability cycle an important safeguard rather than a weakness in Ghana’s constitutional system.
The KNUST lecturer also raised concerns about the political incentives that could emerge from extending presidential tenure.
He warned that giving presidents longer first terms could gradually normalise the idea of longer executive tenure and potentially create pressure in the future for further constitutional changes to presidential term limits.
According to him, Ghana’s democratic stability has partly been built on the country’s ability to resist such incremental expansions of executive power.
He cautioned against introducing a change that could eventually make it easier to argue for further extensions.
“Extending the term today makes it easier, tomorrow, to argue for extending the limit,” he warned.
Prof. Abavare said the challenges governments face when assuming office should instead be addressed through institutional reforms.
He proposed stronger transitions between administrations, greater continuity within the professional civil service, improved policy institutions and a more disciplined budgetary process.
He argued that these measures would enable successive governments to begin work more efficiently without changing the constitutional length of the presidential term.
“The easy option is rewriting the Constitution to give politicians a longer runway,” he said, arguing that the more difficult but more sustainable approach is to build institutions that make four years sufficient for effective governance.
Prof. Abavare also criticised reports that the government has moved beyond discussions on the recommendation and formed a committee to drive its implementation.
He described the development as a “dangerous escalation”, arguing that a constitutional change affecting the relationship between the presidency and the electorate should not be treated as an ordinary administrative reform.
According to him, such a fundamental change must be driven by Ghanaian citizens through a properly constituted national conversation and, ultimately, the constitutional processes required for a referendum.
He therefore appealed to members of any committee established to work on the proposal to carefully consider their constitutional responsibilities.
He said membership of a government committee should not be interpreted as a mandate to reduce the power of Ghanaian voters.
Prof. Abavare called on civil society organisations, the Ghanaian Bar, religious leaders, traditional authorities, organised labour, the media and political parties to scrutinise the proposal.
He urged these groups to publicly debate the implications of extending the presidential term and ensure that citizens are adequately informed before any constitutional decision is taken.
He maintained that the issue should not be determined solely within government or by political actors but must involve the broader Ghanaian population.
Concluding his appeal, Prof. Abavare described the four-year presidential term as one of the important accountability mechanisms established under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
He rejected the suggestion that the four-year cycle is outdated or the result of an oversight, arguing instead that it keeps governments attentive to voters, maintains political competition and gives citizens a regular opportunity to assess their leaders.
He warned that once such an accountability mechanism is surrendered, restoring it could prove difficult.
“Reject the extension. Defend the four-year term,” Prof. Abavare urged.
He maintained that Ghana’s presidential term is not “broken” and therefore should not be changed at the expense of citizens’ ability to deliver a timely verdict on their government at the ballot box.
By 1960news.com
