The announcement by the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, that the Council of State has advised against the passage of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (Amendment) Bill, 2025, deserves careful national reflection.
The bill seeks to amend constitutional provisions that prevent dual citizens from occupying certain sensitive public offices. Although the Council of State’s advice is not binding on Parliament, it carries significant constitutional and moral authority. The Chronicle believes Parliament should give that advice the serious consideration it deserves.
Earlier this year, The Chronicle published an editorial titled “Dual Citizenship in Public Office: Opportunity or Risk?” We acknowledged the potential benefits of opening public office to dual citizens, but also highlighted the risks. The Council of State’s latest position reinforces the need for caution.
The proposed amendment, first introduced during the Eighth Parliament and now reintroduced in the Ninth Parliament, seeks to remove constitutional restrictions that bar dual citizens from occupying offices such as Ambassador, Chief of Defence Staff, Inspector-General of Police and other key constitutional positions. Supporters argue that Ghana should take advantage of the expertise of its Diaspora, estimated at about three million people, many of whom have excelled professionally abroad.
Indeed, President John Dramani Mahama, in opposition, previously described the current restrictions as outdated, arguing that they deny Ghana access to valuable skills and experience that could strengthen governance.
The Chronicle believes there is no doubt that Ghana’s Diaspora has made enormous contributions to national development through remittances, investments, knowledge transfer and professional excellence. Their contribution to the country’s growth cannot be underestimated.
However, this constitutional amendment goes beyond expanding opportunities. It touches directly on national security, sovereignty and public confidence in state institutions.
The advice is coming from no less a body than the Council of State, a constitutionally established advisory institution comprising experienced statesmen and women mandated to counsel the President on matters of national importance.
When such a body advises Parliament against proceeding with a constitutional amendment, its recommendation should not be treated as a mere procedural formality.
Advocates of the bill often point to countries such as Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and Ireland, where dual citizens are permitted to occupy senior public office. While these examples are valid, Ghana’s constitutional and institutional realities are different. These countries have long-established democratic traditions, stronger institutional safeguards and more mature legal systems capable of managing potential conflicts of interest.
Ghana’s democracy has made remarkable progress under the Fourth Republic, but the nation is still strengthening its institutions. Constitutional reforms must, therefore, reflect Ghana’s own circumstances rather than foreign precedents.
The concerns surrounding the bill are neither imaginary nor trivial.First is the issue of undivided allegiance. Holders of sensitive public offices are entrusted with decisions affecting Ghana’s sovereignty and national security. Dual citizenship may create legitimate questions about exclusive loyalty during periods of diplomatic or security tension.
Secondly, there are security considerations. Offices such as the Chief of Defence Staff, Inspector-General of Police, Ambassadors and other security appointments involve access to highly classified information. Even the perception of competing obligations could undermine confidence in these institutions.
Thirdly, conflicts of interest may arise where Ghana’s national interest differs from that of another country to which an office holder also owes legal allegiance. Whether such conflicts occur or not, public confidence requires that they are minimised.
The Chronicle recognises that the proposed amendment fulfils a manifesto commitment of the governing National Democratic Congress. However, party promises should never outweigh broader national interest. As the Akan proverb reminds us, “Sankɔfayɛnkyi”—it is never wrong to go back and reconsider a decision.
This debate also highlights the need for Ghana to anchor its governance on long-term national development strategies rather than political manifestos. National plans are developed through broad consultation and are intended to outlive successive governments.
We appreciate the desire to harness the talents of Ghanaians abroad. Nevertheless, constitutional amendments involving national security require the highest degree of prudence. While the country stands to benefit from the expertise of its Diaspora, the potential risks associated with sensitive constitutional offices cannot be dismissed lightly.
We, therefore, urge Parliament to heed the wise counsel of the Council of State. Constitutional safeguards should only be altered where there is overwhelming national consensus that the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. On this matter, caution remains the wiser course.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
