Shamima Muslim Calls for National Dialogue on Extending Ghana’s Presidential Term
Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Shamima Muslim has called for a national conversation on Ghana’s presidential term limits, arguing that the current four-year mandate is inadequate for achieving meaningful and sustainable national development.
Speaking in an interview with TV3, Ms. Muslim described the four-year term as “wholly insufficient,” noting that it encourages political instability, wasteful election spending, and disrupts long-term planning.
“Expensive elections that begin and start upon the end of another election don’t look like a practical way of managing scarce resources,” she said.
She explained that successive governments spend most of their time on appointments and election preparations rather than governance, leaving little room for transformative leadership.
“Year one is literally spent making appointments, and by year two people are already talking about who takes over. Frequent elections drain resources that could support development,” she observed.
While acknowledging fears of power abuse, Ms. Muslim suggested constitutional reforms that balance continuity and accountability. She proposed allowing political parties to retain high-performing leaders for more than two terms if citizens approve through the ballot.
“If a political party feels it has a long-term plan, the mentality towards development will be different. Let the people decide if they still want that leader or not,” she said.
She added that extending potential leadership cycles to between 12 and 15 years could enhance policy consistency and national progress, though longevity alone would not guarantee good governance.
“Longevity doesn’t always equal good leadership. Citizens must assert their right to choice and demand reforms when leadership goes off track,” she cautioned.
Ms. Muslim urged policymakers to use the ongoing constitutional review process to re-examine Ghana’s governance framework in pursuit of lasting national transformation.
“Possibly, the Constitutional Review Committee will give us what we need to have this conversation, because it would be detrimental to the country if we don’t,” she concluded.