The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in Ghana has expressed disagreement with several government positions on proposed constitutional reforms. According to the IEA, the government's stances on presidential appointments, tenure of elected officials, judicial appointments, local government, parliamentary oversight, and natural resource governance require further review. The aim is to strengthen Ghana's democratic institutions and ensure effective checks on executive power and public accountability.
Justice Sophia Akuffo, former Chief Justice and Distinguished Fellow of the IEA, outlined the Institute's positions at a seminar series on the Prempeh Committee's report and the government's response to the constitutional review. She emphasized that a constitution should determine how power is distributed, how public resources are governed, and how citizens participate in decision-making. The review, she said, should focus on creating institutions capable of promoting development while ensuring that political power remains subject to effective checks and accountability.
The IEA supports the Prempeh Committee's objective of substantially reducing the President's appointment powers but rejects the government's proposed alternative framework. Instead, the IEA suggests that the revised Constitution should contain detailed safeguards to ensure merit-based and inclusive appointments and reduce excessive presidential influence over public institutions. On the proposal to extend the tenure of the President and Members of Parliament from four to five years, the IEA expressed disagreement, arguing that four years is sufficient for elected governments to implement their programs.
The IEA also rejects the government's position that existing arrangements are adequate for judicial appointments. The Institute calls for a reformed Judicial Council to become an independent body responsible for judicial appointments, among other functions. It supports the Committee's proposal for more transparent and structured judicial appointments, including public advertisement, shortlisting, interviews, and parliamentary approval. Furthermore, the IEA suggests constitutional amendments to provide greater procedural detail for the removal and discipline of superior court judges.
On local government, the IEA backs the election of all Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs) but rejects the government's proposal for candidates to be selected from nominees put forward by the President. The Institute advocates for a non-partisan process, allowing all qualified citizens to contest MMDCE elections, supported by adequate fiscal and administrative resources. Additionally, the IEA endorses the Prempeh Committee's proposal to prevent MPs from simultaneously serving as ministers or deputy ministers.
The IEA also made proposals regarding natural resources, suggesting that public lands and natural resources be vested directly in the people of Ghana, rather than in the President on their behalf. The Institute supports prior parliamentary approval of major natural resource contracts and proposes moving beyond Ghana's existing royalty-based mining arrangements towards state ownership of natural resources. It also advocates for constitutional guarantees for benefits to mining communities and the constitutionalization of local processing and value addition.
The IEA expresses reservations about the government's proposed timeline for constitutional amendments, arguing that the process requires adequate public education, consultation, and consensus-building. The Institute emphasizes that the objective should be to preserve what works under the 1992 Constitution while reforming areas that have created institutional weaknesses. The seminar series is expected to provide a platform for further discussion of the Prempeh Committee's recommendations, government positions, and alternative proposals for constitutional reform.
Key points
- The IEA rejects several government positions on proposed constitutional reforms in Ghana.
- The Institute advocates for stronger checks on executive power and public accountability.
- The review process requires adequate public education, consultation, and consensus-building.
