The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has rejected a proposal to extend the tenure of Ghana’s President and Members of Parliament from four to five years, arguing that the existing four‑year mandate is sufficient for governments to implement their programmes.
Former Chief Justice and IEA Fellow Justice Sophia Akuffo said the proposed extension should not be pursued without compelling evidence that the current four‑year term is inadequate. She made the remarks at a press briefing ahead of an IEA seminar under its “Views and Reflections” series, which is examining recommendations of the Prempeh Committee and the government’s position on proposed constitutional reforms.
The Prempeh Committee had recommended extending the presidential and parliamentary terms from four to five years. The government has accepted the proposal, arguing that an additional year would give governments more time to formulate, implement and assess policies.
Justice Akuffo said governments should be adequately prepared before assuming office so they can begin implementing their programmes immediately rather than spending a significant portion of their mandate establishing their administration. “Four years you prepare before you come into office. In fact, you prepare before you even vie for power, so that on the day you come to power, from that day you’re on your feet and running,” she said.
She also criticised delays in appointing ministers and other key officials, saying such delays reduce the time available for governments to implement their programmes. “It shouldn’t take six months to appoint ministers and people into key positions as has been our experience in times past,” she said.
The IEA said the debate should also consider the balance between effective policy implementation and democratic accountability. While proponents of a five‑year term argue that longer mandates would give governments more time to implement long‑term programmes, opponents maintain that shorter electoral cycles strengthen citizens’ ability to hold elected officials accountable.
The institute said the central question should be whether policy discontinuity is genuinely caused by the four‑year electoral cycle or is instead linked to weak institutions, inadequate planning and successive governments abandoning or redesigning programmes initiated by their predecessors. The issue, it said, should also be considered alongside proposals to strengthen the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC).
The IEA argued that a credible long‑term national development framework could allow successive governments to implement substantial programmes within four‑year mandates while contributing to a common national development direction.
