The Member of Parliament for Manhyia South, Hon. Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, has cautioned Ghanaians to pay close attention to proposals to amend key constitutional provisions, warning that some of the recommendations could quietly clear the path for future extensions of presidential term limits.
Writing on Sunday, January 4, 2026, on the work of the Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh Committee, the MP argued that the suggested changes to Article 290 of the 1992 Constitution — alongside the proposal to extend the presidential term from four to five years — could fundamentally alter how presidential powers are checked in Ghana’s democracy.
According to Manhyia South legislature, “It may not be enough to simply vote ‘No’ if a referendum is held on extending the presidential term. Ghanaians must also ensure that any proposal that weakens the entrenched protection around Article 66 is rejected.”
Article 66(1) currently states:
“A person elected as President shall, subject to clause (3) of this article, hold office for a term of four years beginning from the date on which he is sworn in as President.”
Hon. Baffour Awuah explained that under the existing constitutional arrangement, Article 66(1) forms part of the entrenched provisions and therefore cannot be amended unless subjected to a national referendum.
Removal entrenched protection
However, he noted that the Committee proposes to remove Article 66(1) from the entrenched provisions, effectively making it easier to amend in the future.
“If adopted, the amendment would mean Article 66(1) could be changed not by the people in a referendum, but by two-thirds of Members of Parliament,” he warned. “In practical terms, only 184 MPs would be needed to extend the President’s term again at any time.”
The report, he argued, introduces a new category known as “semi-entrenched provisions”, but deliberately excludes Article 66 entirely — meaning the clause governing presidential tenure would automatically fall into the class of ordinary provisions.
“Once Article 66(1) is excluded from both entrenched and semi-entrenched provisions, it becomes non-entrenched by default,” he stressed. “That makes future term extensions legally easier, whether by design or inadvertence.”
Future Amendments Benefit a Sitting President
He further dismissed arguments that such an amendment could never benefit any sitting President, citing Article 107 of the Constitution.
“Those who believe the change cannot have retrospective effect should read Article 107 carefully,” he said. “Its protections are limited and do not provide a blanket safeguard.”
Call for vigilance and transparency
The Manhyia South MP concluded by urging citizens, legislators and civil society to approach the reform process cautiously.
“We must not unknowingly create loopholes that undermine the spirit of term limits,” he added. “Safeguards exist for a reason — to protect democracy, not convenience.
Hon. Baffour Awuah urged stakeholders — including Parliament, civil society, legal scholars and faith-based organisations — to scrutinise every clause of the review proposals rather than focusing only on headline recommendations.
He said constitutional change must be guided by national consensus, not political expediency. “We must read beyond the surface and ask what each amendment ultimately empowers or removes,” he cautioned.
He further stressed that transparency in the review process was essential for building public trust. According to him, citizens deserve clear explanations in plain language about what each proposed change means for governance and accountability.
“Reforms must not be shrouded in legal jargon that hides their true implications from ordinary Ghanaians,” he noted. “People must understand what they are voting for — or against.”
The Manhyia South MP also called for patience, warning against rushing reforms that could permanently reshape the balance of power. He argued that constitutions are meant to protect future generations, not serve short-term political goals.
“If we get this wrong, we may spend decades trying to correct avoidable mistakes,” he said. “Strengthening democracy requires vigilance — and transparency every step of the way.”
Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh COMMITTEE’S REPORT’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 290: THE TROJAN HORSE CONTAINING THE ALTERNATIVE PATHWAY FOR PRESIDENTIAL TERM EXTENSION.
It appears it may not be enough to vote “No”, in case there is a referendum to amend Article 66 clause 1 of the 1992 Constitution to extend the term of office of the President from four (4) years to five (5) years. Those who may not be in favour of the proposed presidential term extension may also have to make sure, the proposed amendment to article 290- Chapter 25, is also rejected.
The said Article 66 (1) makes provision for the term of office of the President under the 1992 Constitution by stating as follows:
“A person elected as President shall, subject to clause(3) of this article, hold office for a term of four years beginning from the date on which he is sworn in as President”
The Professor H. Kwasi PrempehCommittee, per its report, is not only proposing to amend Article 66 clause 1 by extending the presidential term from four (4) years to five (5) years but also, to amend Article 290 of the 1992 constitution to make Article 66 clause 1 cease to be an entrenched provision of the constitution.
The 1992 Constitution, per Article 290 clause 1(f), makes Article 66 clause 1 thereof an entrenched provision by listing the entire chapter on the Executive (Chapter 8), of which Article 66 is a part, as constituting part of the entrenched provisions.
Being an entrenched provision, there is a gamutof well set out procedures for amending the said provision including but not limited to a referendum by the Ghanaian electorate.
However, if the proposal of the HKP Committee is accepted by the Ghanaian voter, Article 66 clause 1 would no longer be an entrenched provision and thus would not require a referendum to amend same.
Where would that leave Article 66 clause 1?
The Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh Committee reportproposes to reclassify the amendmenafter having reclassified the amendment provisions of the Constitution proposes an amendment to Article 290 of the 1992 Constitution. The proposed amendment would effectively render Article 66 clause 1 among other provisions of the Constitution, non-entrenched provisions; amendable by two thirds majority of Parliament. In other words, the votes of 184 members of Parliament would be all that is required to extend the President’s term instead of a referendum.
In the said report, after having proposed an amendment to Article 290 without any empirical evidence to justify same, they proceeded to state as follows:
“The Committee recommends that only the following provisions, considered as forming part of the “basic structure” of critical democratic safeguards of the Constitution, should remain entrenched and amenable by referendum: Articles 1 to 4; Articles 12, 17, 21(1) and 23; Articles 57(1), 58 and 66(2); Article 93(2) and Articles 106(1) and (2); Articles 125 and 127; Article 42; Article 49(1); Articles 55(1) and (2); Articles 162(1) to (3); and a simplified Chapter 25 retaining only the core principles governing the constitutional amendment procedure. “
From the aforecaptured paragraph of the Committee’s report, it is obvious that unless or apart from the provisions aforestated, no other provision will be part of the entrenched provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
After having named their proposed entrenched provisions as afore captured, the Report then proceeded to introduce the new kid on the block; a third category of the provisions in the 1992 Constitution “SEMI- ENTRENCHED PROVISIONS”, by stating as follows:
“The Committee recommends that the following provisions should become semi-entrenched and be amendable only through an enhanced parliamentary procedure requiring the approval of not less than seventy-five percent of all Members of parliament: Article 11; the entirety of Chapter 5 other than Articles 12(1), 17, 21(1) and 23; Articles 43, 46 and 49(2) to (4); Articles 55 and 56 other than Articles 55(1) and (2); the entirety of chapter 8 other than Articles 57(1), 58 and 66; Articles 174 and 187; Article 129 and Articles 145 to 146; Article 200; Article 210; Articles 216 and 225; Article 231; Articles 240 and 252; Article 280; Article 286; and Articles 293 and 299.”
Clearly, from the aforecaptured proposed Semi Entrenched Provisions, the HKP Committee’s Report excluded the entirety of Article 66, including but not limited to Article 66 clause 1.
Having excluded the entirety of Clause 66 from the aforementioned Proposed Semi Entrenched Provisions, it cannot be said that Article 66 clause 1, which provides for the four (4) year term of the office of President, is part of the proposed Semi Entrenched provisions.
What then becomes of Article 66 clause 1, having being left out of the Entrenched Provisions and expressly excluded from the proposed Semi Entrenched provisions as demonstrated above?
The answer can be found in paragraph 9.2 at page 126 of the Report where the committee states as follows:
“The Committee further recommends that all remaining provisions of the Constitution not listed as entrenched or semi-entrenched shall continue to be amended as non-entrenched provisions in accordance with the existing requirement of approval by not less than two-thirds of all Members of Parliament”
The aforecaptured paragraph of the report makes it clear that for a provision to be entrenched or semi-entrenched, it must have been listed as such.
Accordingly, once Article 66 clause 1 is not listed under either the entrenched or semi entrenched provisions, it would be rendered non entrenched, requiring a two-thirds majority of Parliament to amend same.
Therefore it is safe to conclude that per its proposal, the HKP Committee is seeking to make Article 66 clause 1 of the 1992 Constitution a Non Entrenched provision.
Effect of the Proposal
Effectively, Article 66(1) in that circumstance can be amended, upon approval by 184 Members of Parliament, to extend the term of the President beyond 4 years.
So even if the 5 year term proposal is rejected at a referendum, an easier channel would have been created for the term extension by design or inadvertence.
The argument that such a development would not apply retrospectively and thus President Mahama cannot benefit from such, is not compelling.
Read Article 107 very well and you will realize that it is not of general application but limited to accrued rights of an individual.
Hon Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah (MP, Manhyia South)
Source: Ghana/otecfmghana.com
