Defending calls for deep public engagement in Ghana’s constitutional review process, Constitution Review Committee Chairman Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh noted that while thorough consultation takes time, effective democracy cannot be rushed.
Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express on Monday, Prof. Prempeh warned Ghana against rushing constitutional reforms that will shape the country’s governance for generations. Unlike ordinary politics, he noted, constitutions are designed to outlive individual leaders, political parties, and ruling governments.
Prof. Prempeh described the political class as the gatekeepers of the review process. Because of this critical role, he urged them to approach the exercise with patriotism rather than partisan interests. Additionally, he urged political leaders to look past their current terms in office and focus on building a lasting legacy.
Prof. Prempeh acknowledged that politics is inherently part of constitutional reform, but he argued that broad public debate is essential for lasting change.
“Rather than rushing to cast a vote, let us debate and include the public in that discussion,” he said. “Let us see who has the superior arguments, because we are reforming our state and how it is governed.”
Furthermore, the constitutional law expert admitted that the review process had already lost valuable time.
“I think we’ve lost time,” he stated, noting that the process could have moved faster if the government had submitted its proposals directly to the Constitution Review Committee alongside other stakeholders.
Although Prof. Prempeh acknowledged the argument for aligning a constitutional referendum with local government elections to boost turnout, he maintained that the remaining time should prioritize broad public engagement.
When asked if this approach would delay the reforms, he explained that such trade-offs are an essential part of democratic constitution-making.
“That’s what makes constitutions and democracy slower than the alternative,” he noted. “You slow it so that you hopefully improve the outcome and its legitimacy.”
