Yaw Boafo questions Prempeh’s fitness to chair constitution review

Former Ghana Bar Association president Yaw Boafo has criticised the choice of Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh as chair of Ghana’s Constitution Review Committee, insisting the role belongs to a Ghana-qualified lawyer.

Yaw Boafo argued that constitutional reform is too central to the country’s legal order to be led by anyone who is not enrolled at the Ghana Bar and qualified to practise before local courts.

Professor Prempeh chaired the Constitution Review Committee established in January 2025, which has completed its work and submitted a report to President John Dramani Mahama.

The President has since signalled his intention to consult further experts to examine the proposals before any constitutional amendments are pursued.

Among the committee’s key recommendations are a proposal to extend the presidential term from four to five years and a suggestion to reduce the minimum age requirement for presidential candidates from 40 to 30 years.

Appearing on Metro TV’s Good Evening Ghana on Friday, January 16, Yaw Boafo said Ghana’s constitutional tradition sets a clear benchmark for leadership of such sensitive processes.

“Our constitutional history has always taught us that constitutional review committees are chaired by persons who have the right to practise in the Republic of Ghana,” he stated.

According to him, past constitutional exercises have consistently been led by lawyers who are formally recognised by the country’s legal system and have direct experience with its courts.

“You must be a lawyer called to the Ghana Bar or someone who has a right of audience before our courts,” Yaw Boafo added.

He acknowledged Professor Prempeh’s academic credentials and standing as a constitutional scholar but maintained that scholarship alone should not substitute for professional qualification within Ghana’s legal framework.

“For our purposes, he is not part of those of us who have our names enrolled on the roll of lawyers in Ghana,” he said.

Yaw Boafo stressed that constitutional reform requires more than theoretical expertise, arguing that everyday legal practice exposes lawyers to the practical realities, institutional culture and procedural challenges that shape how the Constitution operates in real life.

In his view, those lived professional experiences are critical when reviewing foundational laws that govern elections, executive power and citizens’ rights.

His comments add to the growing public debate around the work of the Constitution Review Committee, particularly as its recommendations touch on politically sensitive areas such as presidential tenure and eligibility.