Extension of Tenure of President and MPs: A matter of constitutional fairness

The proposal to extend the tenure of the President and Members of Parliament from four (4) years to five (5) years raises an important constitutional question — when should such a change take effect?

In constitutional democracies, electoral mandates are based on informed consent. Voters elect leaders under clearly defined rules, including the duration of office. Ghanaians voted for the current President and MPs on the express constitutional basis of a four-year term.

Applying a longer tenure after the election would amount to changing the terms of the mandate mid-stream, contrary to principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectation, and democratic fairness.

Comparative constitutional practice supports this approach. In jurisdictions such as France and Kenya, reforms affecting tenure were applied prospectively, not retrospectively, taking effect only after fresh elections conducted under the new constitutional framework. This ensures that incumbents do not benefit from rule changes introduced during their tenure.

The issue, therefore, is not whether a five-year term is desirable, but whether it is constitutionally proper to apply it to sitting office holders to whom the people gave a four-year mandate. It should be highlighted that if the people were to have been informed of a possible change of tenure midstream from 4 to 5 years, their choices of a President and MPs may have been influenced.

Therefore, in the interest of fairness, public trust, and constitutional integrity, any extension of tenure should commence with the next President and Parliament, following elections held with full voter awareness of the new term length.

Good constitutional reforms must not only be sound but must also be seen to be fair.

Joseph Cudjoe

Fmr MP for Effia Constituency

Fmr Minister, Public Enterprises