The Herculean Task of Prof. H Kwasi Prempeh and Co
By Dr. Ato Kwamena Danso · 23 December 2025 · Politics
If you thought our local bitters were the only things with too many toxic ingredients, wait until you hear about our latest attempt to "fix" the 1992 Constitution. We are back at it again, Osagyefo, polishing the family heirloom that everyone complains is too heavy to carry, yet no one wants to actually put down. President Mahama, in his "Reset" spirit, has inaugurated a new Constitutional Review Committee chaired by Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh. (I still haven't figured out what the "H" stands for, but judging by the gravity of his task, I suspect it might be "Herculean" or perhaps just "Help.") Interestingly, the Professor remarked that they realized the President himself "didn't like" certain powers he currently holds. He may have said it in jest, but it certainly gave the impression that the committee’s primary job description is to curate a list of powers the President is tired of wearing, like a tailor helping a King pick which robes to donate to charity. It’s a touching sentiment, though it does make one wonder if the committee is there to serve the sovereign people or simply to "please the President" by lightening his heavy, gold-plated burden. One of the more ambitious whispers coming out of the committee is the proposal to stretch the presidential term from four years to five. The argument is that four years is barely enough time for a leader to find the keys to the Flagstaff House, let alone fix the nation. However, it seems our leaders have forgotten a simple Ghanaian truth: if you do well in your first term, the people will gladly gift you another four years. We’ve managed eight-year stretches just fine since 1993 without needing to move the goalposts mid-game. Seeking a longer "initial" term feels less like a request for more time to work and more like a lack of confidence in one’s ability to impress the voters before the first four years are up. Across our borders, we’ve seen exactly where this "extra year" logic leads. In many Francophone countries, tinkering with terms is the gateway drug to a "constitutional coup." We’ve watched as leaders in the Sahel and beyond extend their stay, only for the military to decide that if the ballot box won't provide a change, the barracks will. From Guinea to Gabon, the story is the same: when you try to overstay your welcome by rewriting the rules, someone eventually tries to topple the government. An extra year in a comfortable seat might seem like progress to a politician, but in our neighborhood, it often looks like an invitation for a mutiny. Then there is the matter of the Supreme Court, which currently has no cap on how many judges can sit there. It’s like a commercial bus that never actually fills up; if the President doesn't like the current passengers, he just adds more rows of seats and brings in his own friends. The committee is suggesting a "ceiling," which seems sensible to everyone except those holding the hammer. In Ghana, we prefer our ceilings to be made of glass easy to see through and even easier to break when a "legal necessity" arises. We’ve reached a point where the bench is getting so crowded that the justices might soon have to start sitting on each other's laps just to fit in the room. This lack of a cap is exactly the kind of "constitutional detergent" that allows an administration to wash away any judgment they don't like. And I cannot ignore the holy grail of political benefits: Article 71. This is the section that ensures the "big men" are well-fed while the rest of the country debates if they can afford a tin of milk. The committee is looking at the salaries and ex-gratia payments that make our politicians the most comfortable paupers in the world. Every time someone mentions cutting these, the room goes as quiet as a cemetery at midnight. Even the opposition, usually so loud with their Shakespearean quotes and Macbethian drama, becomes remarkably silent when the conversation turns to their own retirement packages. It appears that while we can’t agree on how to fix the roads, everyone is in total harmony about keeping the ex-gratia flowing. So here we are, Osagyefo, back in the cycle of reviewing the review. We spent millions on the 2010 review only to ignore it, and now we are treating the 2025 committee like it’s a brand-new discovery. We have become professional "reviewers" who will continue to study the problem until the original problem is forgotten or we simply run out of paper. Whether these findings will lead to a real change or just end up as a very expensive doorstop at the Flagstaff House remains to be seen. I suppose if we can’t fix the industrial detergent in our herbal drinks, fixing the "chemicals" in our Constitution is a tall order indeed. So long, Ato KD