Here’s a 25-point breakdown of NPP’s case against NDC’s constitution review

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has criticized the current approach to reviewing Ghana's 1992 Constitution, proposing the establishment of a Constituent or Consultative Assembly to deliberate on proposed changes. This stance emerged following the government's publication of its response to the Constitutional Review Committee's recommendations in July.

The Committee submitted its full report to President John Mahama on February 10, 2026, containing 147 proposed amendments to existing articles and 59 entirely new provisions, for a total of 206 proposals.

The NPP contends that the extensive scale of the proposed changes warrants a broader deliberative process before amendments proceed through constitutional procedures. Here are the party's key arguments:

1. The NPP acknowledges the 1992 Constitution's role in Ghana's democratic governance but asserts that some provisions necessitate improvement to enhance accountability, promote decentralization, and modernize state institutions. This position has been consistent over time, including during the 2010 constitutional review and the party's Peduase Report.

2. The NPP emphasizes the extensive nature of the proposed changes, noting that the 147 amendments to the existing 299 articles, along with the 59 new provisions, represent approximately 49% of the total. They argue that this represents a fundamental overhaul of the constitution rather than a routine amendment process.

3. The party describes the proposed changes as effectively creating a new constitutional order, stating that 206 proposals reaching into various executive branches, legislative bodies, independent constitutional institutions, and local government constitute a significant overhaul rather than minor adjustments.

4. The NPP highlights significant disagreements between the government and the Review Committee, with the party claiming that the government has accepted only 22 out of the 147 recommendations and partially accepted another 25. This leaves about 100 recommendations where the two sides remain at odds.

5. The party questions the timing of the full report's publication, arguing that the Committee submitted its report on February 10, 2026, but it was not released until July 30. The NPP asserts that government's response was published on the same date.

6. The NPP also raises the Tribunals Bill, pointing out that Parliament passed legislation on this matter in a direction diverging from the Committee's recommendation during the time between report submission and publication.

7. The party asserts that the consultation process has effectively concluded, stating that government has declared it complete and instructed the Constitution Review Implementation Committee to proceed with drafting rather than further negotiations. This, according to the NPP, removes formal platforms for political parties, organized labor, professional bodies, and other identifiable groups to engage in negotiations over areas of disagreement.

8. The NPP objects to Parliament being the next major stage in the amendment process, arguing that the government could rely on its parliamentary majority to advance amendments to non-entrenched provisions while entrenched provisions would follow a different procedure and ultimately be submitted to a referendum.

9. The NPP draws parallels to Ghana's previous constitutional exercises in 1969, 1979, and 1992, arguing that each involved an expert body followed by deliberation through a broader representative body before the resulting constitutional text gained legal force.

10. The party cites the 1969 process, involving a Constitutional Commission chaired by Chief Justice Edward Akufo-Addo, followed by a Constituent Assembly that deliberated on the draft constitutional framework before a referendum.

11. The NPP also references the 1979 process, which involved a Constitutional Commission established in 1978 and a subsequent Constituent Assembly.

12. Finally, the party points to the 1992 process, involving a Committee of Experts chaired by Dr. S.K.B. Asante and a Consultative Assembly whose draft became the basis for the 1992 referendum, arguing that the historical pattern should inform the current constitutional review process.