CRC proposes scrapping retirement age from constitution

Chair of the Constitutional Review Committee, Professor H Kwasi Prempeh, says the committee is proposing the removal of the retirement age of 60 years from the 1992 Constitution.

According to him, the current constitutional provision does not reflect modern realities, particularly in sectors such as academia, where many professionals remain productive well beyond the age of 60.

He said the committee believes people should be allowed to work until at least 70 years.

“Our judges are retiring at 65 and 70, and so why must university lecturers, some of them still very sharp, at 60 years?” Prof Prempeh asked in an exclusive interview with TV3’s Kemmini Amanor. He added that “some of them are actually not even in their prime yet.”

He explained that rather than fixing a specific age in the Constitution, the committee is proposing its removal to allow Parliament greater flexibility.

“Don’t keep 69 years in the constitution, take it out and then, as and when you need to play with it, it is easier to do it in parliament,” he said, arguing that this would allow broader deliberation and sector-specific adjustments.

Prof Prempeh noted that many universities currently retire staff at 60 only to re-engage them on contract, a practice he described as ineffective.

“Everybody knows that it is not working. Let them work to 70,” he stated.

He also cautioned against using retirement age as a tool to address unemployment. “You don’t use retirement age that way; there is a problem of employment,” he said, stressing that vacancies created by retirement do not automatically translate into jobs for the unemployed.

Beyond retirement reforms, Prof Prempeh reflected on public engagement during the committee’s nationwide consultations, describing the openness of participants as “quite refreshing.”

He said feedback suggested growing dissatisfaction with Ghana’s democratic practice.

“People like the democracy that they are seeing… but I think they were getting a bit tired,” he said. “We change these parties, and then what? For most people, you could get the sense that the democracy was becoming choiceless for them.”

Prof Prempeh also defended the committee’s recommendation to amend Article 62(b) to reduce the minimum age for presidential candidates from 40 to 30 years.

He clarified that eligibility does not guarantee electoral success. “It doesn’t mean that when you are 30, and you stand for president you are going to get elected,” he said.

He added that age should ultimately be left to voter choice. “They know your age, and if they choose to vote for you, that is their problem,” he stated, noting that younger leaders are being elected in several advanced democracies.

The committee further recommended extending a presidential term from four to five years but said it found no public support for introducing a third term for sitting presidents.

“We couldn’t find a place for a third term; nobody really seemed to like it,” Prof Prempeh said.

Additional proposals include reviewing the appointment process for heads of state-owned enterprises and transferring some corruption-related powers from the Attorney-General to an Ethics Commission to allow the A-G focus on major constitutional and international cases.