A law lecturer says it was possible for the Electoral Commission (EC) to have changed the November election date without relying on the support of a super-majority in parliament.

Yaw Oppong has argued that instead of going to parliament with an Amendment Bill, all the EC should have done was to send a constitutional instrument which does not need a vote let alone 184 votes to pass.

His recommendation comes after Parliament rejected the Amendment Bill 2016 which sought to bring forward the date for general elections from December to November.

This is to allow more time to do a proper handing over constitutionally fixed on January 7 of the incoming year.

But the Amendment Bill fell flat in parliament after it fell short of the 184 votes needed to effect historic change.

Mr Oppong believes this torturous process to get wide consensus was not necessary. He said the 1992 Constitution already allows for Presidential and Parliamentary elections at least four months to the expiration of the tenure of the president.

He quoted Article 63 (2) which states:

“The election of the President shall be on the terms of universal adult suffrage and shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, be conducted in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by constitutional instrument by the Electoral Commission and shall be held so as to begin

“ (a) where a President is in office, not earlier than four months nor later than one month before his term of office expires”.

This law, he believes paves the way for early presidential elections.

“We can hold presidential elections on October 7 ….or on November 7,” Mr Oppong explained.

To effect this change, a Constitutional Instrument (CI) is needed not an Amendment Bill. The CI takes 21 parliamentary sittings to come into effect.

But if this plan is followed by a major convention of holding Presidential and Parliamentary elections on the same date, it would have to change.

Mr  Oppong does not believe that breaking this convention should matter, explaining that, "If the purpose of the election date change was to allow for more time to hand over, then the objective would be achieved if we elect the president first.

This is because it is MPs who must hand over, it is the Executive –the president and his appointees, he stressed.

“We are not practicing a parliamentary system of government. We are practicing executive system. It is the executive that hands over,” the lecturer said.

"So all that is needed was to change the date of the presidential elections and nothing more", he indicated.