The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has rejected a proposal to extend the tenure of Ghana’s President and Members of Parliament from four to five years, arguing that the existing four-year mandate provides sufficient time for governments to implement their programmes.

Former Chief Justice and IEA Fellow, Justice Sophia Akuffo, said there was no compelling evidence to justify extending the current term.

She made the remarks at a press briefing ahead of an IEA seminar under its “Views and Reflections” series, which is examining recommendations of the Prempeh Committee and the government’s position on proposed constitutional reforms.

The Prempeh Committee recommended extending the presidential and parliamentary terms from four to five years.

The government has accepted the proposal, arguing that an additional year would give governments more time to formulate, implement and assess policies.

The IEA, however, maintains that governments should be sufficiently prepared to begin implementing their programmes immediately after assuming office.

Justice Akuffo said political parties and prospective governments should undertake the necessary preparations before taking office rather than using a significant portion of their mandate to establish their administration.

“Four years you prepare before you come into office. In fact, you prepare before you even vie for power, so that on the day you come to power, from that day you’re on your feet and running,” she said.

She also criticised delays in appointing ministers and other key officials, saying such delays reduce the time available for governments to execute their programmes.

“It shouldn’t take six months to appoint ministers and people into key positions as has been our experience in times past,” she said.

The IEA said the debate over the proposed five-year term should take into account the need to balance effective policy implementation with democratic accountability.

While proponents of a longer mandate argue that an additional year would provide more time to implement long-term programmes, opponents maintain that shorter electoral cycles strengthen citizens’ ability to hold elected officials accountable.

The institute said a key issue for consideration is whether policy discontinuity is genuinely caused by the four-year electoral cycle or is instead the result of weak institutions, inadequate planning and successive governments abandoning or redesigning programmes initiated by their predecessors.

The IEA further said the proposed extension should be considered alongside efforts to strengthen the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC).

It argued that a credible long-term national development framework could enable successive governments to implement substantial programmes within four-year mandates while contributing to a common national development direction.