If parties turn Constitution Review into political battle, we’ve lost a once-in-a-generation opportunity – Kwasi Prempeh

Constitutional reform committee head Prof H. Kwasi Prempeh has cautioned political factions against transforming Ghana's constitutional review process into a partisan arena. In an interview on Joy News' PM Express, he emphasized that such an approach could squander a unique chance for substantial national reforms. According to Prof Prempeh, constitutions are long-lasting documents designed to govern the country for generations, setting the foundational rules for governance, political leadership recruitment, removal, and power distribution.

These elements transcend party governments, regimes, and individual leaders, making them inherently non-partisan.

He exhorted political parties to approach the exercise with a sense of patriotic duty rather than party allegiance, stressing that the outcome will affect future generations. "I'm expecting, I'm hoping that the political class, who for better or worse are the gatekeepers in this process… will come to this with a certain sense of patriotic obligation, not deference to party, because this is going to last beyond any party's tenure, any president's tenure," he stated.

Prof Prempeh urged politicians to contemplate whether the constitutional changes they endorse would create a nation their descendants would be proud to inherit. He cautioned that if they perceive it as a zero-sum game where one incumbent party gains at the expense of the rival party, they may have missed a chance for transformative reforms.

While recognizing that constitutional reform involves politics, he stressed the importance of public participation and robust national debate for a credible outcome. "I expect that everyday politics will also be infused into it. This is why I think it's important for the deliberative content of this process to be very high, so that rather than rush things and go quickly to cast a vote, let us debate and argue it, and let the public be part of that debate, and let us see who has the superior arguments."

He warned that neglecting deliberation and participation would undermine the reform process. "We are reforming our state, the republic, and how it's governed. So, if we do not infuse it with a high degree of deliberation, debate, and participation, then we will probably have the result that you predict, and I think that that would be unfortunate."

Prof Prempeh also admitted that valuable time had already been lost and expressed disappointment that government proposals were not submitted directly through the consultative process. "I think we've lost time... I would have preferred that any government position be funnelled through the consultative process as input, along with other positions," he acknowledged.

Although he acknowledged the political necessity to align aspects of the process with forthcoming local government elections, he maintained that speed should not compromise the process's legitimacy. "That's what makes constitutions and constitution-making and democracy slower than the alternative. You slow it so that you hopefully improve the outcome, the legitimacy of the outcome," he noted.