Increasingly Ghanaians are being confused by events in the country regarding the issue of ex-Presidents running for office. To preserve democracy and peace in the country, this issue must be addressed timely. Constitutions are meant to provide a framework for governance. They specify the government’s nature and functions. They also prescribe its limits.
Ghana’s 1992 Constitution is a hybrid of the US Presidential system and Britain’s Parliamentary system of government, incorporating ideas from each. A unique problem that hampers Ghana’s young democracy is the lack of meaningful constitutional checks-and-balances. It’s against this background that we need to clarify the issue of ex-presidents running for office in Ghana. This issue is a critical one, with the potential to derail our young democracy if not addressed with care.
Humans tend to want what they cannot have. This is a tale as old as the Biblical Adam and Eve story. By nature, we are self-interested and frequently short-sighted. The U.S. Federalists recognized these traits in humans and designed a system of checks-and-balances specifically to combat them in their democracy. One of the most effective checks on dictatorship and bad governance is term limits. Perhaps framers of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution had this in mind when they prescribed a term limit for our Presidents. Article 66 (2) stipulates “a person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms”. This provision, much like the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, prohibits Ghanaian Presidents from running for office after their second term. In addition to providing a crucial check on dictatorial tendencies, term limits open the political arena to new candidates with fresh ideas.
Take it from President Obama, who at the end of his second term said: “I’m pretty convinced that I’ve done a great job and can win another term of office if the constitution allows it”. He, of course, could not run for a third term. In his words, “the beauty of the U.S. Constitution is that it paves the way for a new candidate and fresh ideas”. Compare that with the Russian constitution, which allows ex-Presidents to re-enter office and has nurtured dictatorship. Which way does Ghana want to tread? Do we want to saturate our Presidential elections landscape with ex-Presidents? Of course, our Presidents will be more purposeful in their term of office when they know they won’t hold the position forever.
We need to clarify Article 60 (2) of Ghana’s constitution that stipulates, “Where the unexpired term served by a Vice-President exceeds half the term of a President, the Vice-President is subsequently only eligible to serve one full term as President.” This means that an ex-President who completed less than two years of his predecessor’s term of office as President before serving a 4-year term can compete for the Presidency again. What needs clarification is whether the stipulated two 4-year terms of office should be back-to-back. I tend to side with the back-to-back argument for the following reasons. Framers of our 1992 Constitution must have realized that 8 years in office would be simultaneously long enough for a good government to completely implement a party’s manifesto and for an incompetent government to do irreversible damage to the country’s economic growth and development. They came up with a better option -- two 4-year terms in office, which simultaneously allows voters to sack an incompetent government and reward good governance with another 4-year term of office. The prospect of a second 4-year term of office is an incentive for good governance in the first 4-year term but not an entitlement. Therefore a President who is rejected at the polls after his or her first term of office isn’t entitled to another 4-year term of office. This is good for democracy because it minimizes the risk of resorting to a revolution to remove an incompetent government. Another reason is that ex-Presidents can use their connections developed during their term of office to curry favour and gain an unfair advantage in their party’s flagbearer elections with selected delegates as voters. That’s not good for democracy!
To conclude, Article 66(2) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution could be interpreted in one of two ways - With or without accounting for the intent of the framers. If it's read without accounting for the intent of the framers, it's essentially the same as the Constitution of the Russian Federation. There would be no term limits. We'd have a dictatorship. That's not what the framers intended. They looked to the US and British systems of government because they wanted a democracy.
We should consider the logical intent of the framers--not just the words--when addressing the issue of re-election after being voted out of office. It gives the president an unfair advantage in a later election. When the people have voted such a president out of power and he runs again, there is a high risk that this unfair advantage will lead to an ex-president who is not favoured by the people either winning or progressing to the detriment of other candidates. Finally, an ex-President returning to the office to complete another 4-year term after rejection at the polls may have no incentive for good governance.
Source: Professor Seth Appiah-Opoku | University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA | [email protected]
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
Well reasoned and thoughtful piece,it doesn't make sense for ex-presidents to comeback in the spirit of the constitution.We make mistake in just talking about the letter,without considering the foresight and spirit of the framers.
After reading this article, it's clear JDM will lose a constitutional battle at the Supreme Court if his candidacy is challenged. The learned Judges will agree with the "back-to-back" interpretation of the constitution because it makes more sense than the entitlement argument. If a president performs poorly in the first 4-years and is voted out of power, why bring him back again? To come mess up the country more? or to come siphon out our money? or to come punish constituencies that voted him out in his re-election? The NDC must treat carefully!!
My friend when we run out of our own country without nobody chasing us, let as keep quite whiles we continue to call ourselves aliens in foreign land. Stop comparing Ghana to USA, we are never there. Leave them to solve their elections problems. By the way have you read and digest 984 pages of CRC report? please keep your mouth shut and sit your so called Alabama. Stop bluffing!!!
Akoto, you should be ashamed of yourself for not feeling disgraced by the humiliating defeat of this man. The man was a complete disaster and the good people thought it wise to boot him away so what is your guarantee the people will change their minds for this disaster? it is only a drunkard who will behave the way your man is doing, he should give respect to the verdict of the people and he should respect the constitution of this land. For his gross disrespect of the people's verdict his 2020 defeat will be worst off than 2016, he can't dictate to Ghanaians who deserve our presidency and he is not entitled to it. Let's take a bet and see his defeat in 2020 if ndc make the mistake of bringing him, he talks like a drunkard like his appointee warned Ghanaians, John mahama is not matured at all and doesn't behave like a former president, look at the rest of the flagbearer candidates of the ndc, the way they talk and present themselves, if not booze how on earth could mahama talk like he is the flagbearer! The man is a drunkard and Ghana can't afford anymore of the disgrace he brought on us. The Kanazoe bribe, the mahama paper, the Scotland paliament and the BBC are you corrupt as president or what?as mahama! what a disgrace!Ndc will rot in opposition!
It is ONLY in Africa that you could hear this "that a heavily defeated former President" would want to come back to contest on a political party (NDC) ticket after receiving his Ex-gratia. The late president of USA, ***barred word*** was one-time president but he conceded and retired honourably but not in Africa, Ghana and in this case NDC John Dramani Mahama. Is it expression of greed or inferiority complex syndrome? I think only he Mahama could answer this. To me this is a very shameful act and NDC will pay dearly for this confusion.
YOU CAN WRITE MILLION ARTICLES A DAY AGAINST MAHAMA'S COME BACK, BUT YOU LIE. JOHN MAHAMA IS COMING BACK TO CONTEST SINCE HE SERVED ONLY 6 MONTHS INTO LATE ATTA MILLS FIRST FOUR YEARS AND NOT MORE THAN HALF OF THE TERM AS CLEARLY SPELT BY THE CONSTITUTION OF GHANA. IF YOU KNOW THAT HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED AGAIN TO CONTEST AFTER HIS FIRST 4 YEAR TERM, WHY DIDN'T YOU CHALLENGE THAT IN 2016?. BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW IN POWER AND HAS PERFORMED INCREDIBLY ABYSMAL IN GOVERNMENT AND KNOW VERY WELL THAT YOU CANNOT ACHIEVE THE STANDARD HE(JM) SET IN GOVERNANCE, YOU THINK YOU CAN USE THESE TACTICS TO DISQUALIFY HIM. THAT ONE IS A NO GO AREA AND SHOULD FORGET IT, NOT EVEN A DREAM. HYPOCRITES WHO HAVE THROWN INTEGRITY TO THE DOGS AND CLAIMING THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS. WHERE WAS EXPERTISE IN LAW WHEN JM CONTESTED IN 2016?. SHAME ON TO YOU.
A very well-thought out article. In fact it doesn't make sense of the spirt of the Constitution to retire, be on pension (being paid all benefits as a former president) and then turn around to contest again. Is the word "Term" or "Time"? The America and British democracies that we are copying have lot to teach us. For example, Federalist John Adams, one of America's Founding Fathers, was the second president of the United States, having served from 1797 to 1801. "In the campaign of 1800 the Republicans were united and effective, the Federalists badly divided," Adams' White House biography reads. Adams lost his re-election campaign in 1800 to Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson. Don’t feel too sorry for one-term presidents. They get the same nice presidential retirement package as two-term presidents including a yearly pension, a staffed office, and several other allowances and benefits.