Former Tamale Central MP Inusah Fuseini has thrown his weight against the government’s proposal to extend Ghana’s presidential tenure from four to five years, arguing that the change would do little to enhance governance efficiency.
In a sharp critique on Accra-based Citi FM, Fuseini dismissed the notion that an extra year would cure the administrative bottlenecks that often plague administrations. Instead, he pointed to President John Dramani Mahama’s current term as living proof that a government with clear intent can deliver meaningful results within a standard four-year cycle.
“John Mahama’s second coming has dispelled that idea,” Fuseini said. “When you come with intention, purpose, and deliberateness, you can achieve so much even in your first year.”
The former lawmaker was responding to a government position paper submitted to the Constitutional Review Committee, which recommends a single five-year term as one of several amendments to the 1992 Constitution. Proponents of the change have long argued that four years are too short—with the first year spent settling in and the final year consumed by electioneering—leaving only two productive years.
But Fuseini rejected that timeline entirely. He insisted that a focused administration can hit the ground running, appoint key officials, establish institutions, and implement policies without delay. Extending the term, he warned, risked breeding complacency rather than driving results.
“The amendment is not talking to efficiency. It’s talking to lethargy,” he said. “You are elected to work for the benefit and welfare of the people.”
Instead of tinkering with tenure length, Fuseini called for the introduction of measurable performance benchmarks that would hold governments accountable from day one. He urged the review committee to prioritize structural reforms—such as streamlining appointment processes and strengthening institutional capacity—over altering the presidential mandate.
While opposing the five-year proposal, Fuseini welcomed the broader constitutional review exercise, describing it as a necessary evolution for a democracy that must adapt to changing governance challenges.
The government’s proposal, which also includes a single-term limit to curb excessive executive power, has ignited fresh debate among political analysts and civil society groups. Critics argue it would give a president too much time without electoral accountability, while supporters say it would reduce the constant distraction of campaign cycles.
For Fuseini, the answer lies not in the clock but in the calendar of performance. “If you come with purpose, four years is more than enough,” he concluded. “What we need is not more time—it’s better use of the time we have.”
