Ghana’s 1992 constitution has guided the practice of democracy in Ghana since the Fourth Republic. It has seen the smooth transition of power and governance through democratic elections between two major political parties in nine different general elections.
Just like every constitution in the world, Ghana’s 1992 constitution is not a perfect one. It came with its own shortcomings, with some of the articles and instruments being a subject of constant debate and public discourse. One of such subjects remains Article 8(2) and 94(2a), which spells out Dual Citizenship.
Article 8(2) bars Dual Citizenship holders from specific offices and appointments including;
(a) Ambassador or High Commissioner;
(b) Secretary to the Cabinet;
(c) Chief of Defense Staff or any Service Chief;
(d) Inspector-General of Police;
(e) Commissioner, Customs, Excise and Preventive Service;
(f) Director of Immigration Service; and
(g) any office specified by an Act of Parliament.
Article 94(2a) was also specific in determining that a Dual Citizenship holder (one who holds allegiance to a country other than Ghana) shall not be qualified to be a Member of Parliament.
On the back of these constant debates, there have been numerous calls for a Constitutional review. When President John Dramani Mahama assumed office in 2025, he constituted an eight-member Committee chaired by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh to lead the Constitutional review processes in his first month. The Committee completed its work and submitted its report to the President on 22nd December 2025.
As part of the recommendations, the call for the revision of Articles 8(2) and 94(2a) featured prominently. The recommendation states clearly that;
(a) Articles 8 and 94 of the Constitution, to replace the concept of “dual citizenship” with “multiple citizenship”.
(b) Article 8 should be amended to limit constitutional disqualifications arising from multiple citizenship exclusively to the offices of President and Vice President; and clarify that multiple citizenship, by itself, does not constitute a ground for exclusion from any other elective or appointive public office under the Constitution.
(c) Article 94 should be amended to remove multiple citizenship as a disqualification for election to Parliament; and affirm that every citizen of Ghana, irrespective of multiple nationality status, is eligible to stand for election to Parliament, subject only to age, competence, integrity, and eligibility requirements applicable equally to all citizens.
Again, we are back to debates with these new recommendations. Others have argued that it is the right call with arguments that Ghanaian citizens abroad contribute massively to the economy of Ghana and must be allowed to have a say in our governance processes. In 2025 alone, Ghana’s remittances recorded a significant $8 billion US dollars. This accounted for almost 6% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Does people who contribute this significantly to a country’s economy be barred from the governance processes as a result of pledging allegiance to another country? What is wrong with this recommendation? Well, let me share my views and that of a lot more (majority, I believe) who share in my stand.
In my opinion, the call for this review is something pushed by a privilege few. These sects include;
- Politicians (mainly) and a few rich individuals who have succeeded in securing another citizenship document for their relations and offsprings. The Politicians do not trust the kind of governance they are offering the people. They know in their hearts the kind of mal-development they have subjected the nation to. They are offering the ordinary Ghanaian this and yet protect their own offsprings against same. Irony?
- Ghanaians in the diaspora who have pledged and secured documents of allegiance to another country, whilst still holding on to their Ghanaian citizenship. Some of these individuals have delivered great strides and contributed significantly to their second home country’s development. Some have even done more by contributing significantly to global development. Genuinely, one would want to revisit their home country, taking part in the governance processes and effecting the same changes and developments as those done for others. For me, these sects are not much of a problem. The offspring and relations of the Politicians are.
Now, let’s analyse what could be wrong with the recommendations by the Constitutional review team.
- Unguarded accountability; Proponents of this change have argued that what we actually need is putting in place preventive measures to guard accountability, loyalty, conflict of interest and all. Truly, as part of the Committee’s recommendations on the constitutional review of Dual Citizenship, mechanisms were proposed to ensure accountability and safeguard against conflict of interest scenarios.
‘The Constitution should impose an express duty on Parliament to enact legislation establishing comprehensive integrity, conflict-of-interest, security vetting, and disclosure regimes applicable to all public office holders; and ensure that concerns relating to loyalty, allegiance, accountability, and public confidence are addressed through transparent, proportionate, and non-discriminatory regulatory mechanisms, rather than through blanket or status-based exclusions.’
This admission is a problem in itself. Why are we trying to create a situation knowing very well that it could come with dire consequences? How well have we succeeded in ensuring accountability presently among our political appointees? We have these laws in place yet appointees comfortably award huge contracts to their own firms, families and allies. The Attorney General is in court presently over some of these cases, with public confidence proven very low in almost every case. The citizenry had learnt over time that nothing ever comes out of these. For two years now, Ghana has been trying to extradite two of its own (at least we are made to believe that) to face charges of accountability and jail terms (Ken Ofori-Atta and Sedina Tamakloe Attionu). This has not happened and there are no indications that it would. Now, let’s flip the coin to suit this current subject of dual citizenship. Ken Ofori Atta and Sedina Tamakloe Attionu are Ghanaian citizens only and yet we are unable to get them to face accountability and judgement. How then were we going to extradite them if they were citizens of the countries they are taking refuge? We can’t pretend this is not a problem. The ordinary Ghanaian knows this. Those who are pushing for this for their own interests know this too.
Do we really need to be in Ghana’s Parliament or hold a political appointment before we can serve? If you are really convinced this is a call you ought to answer to, why don’t you demonstrate it by letting go any form of allegiance pledged to another country and focus only on the nation and constituents you want to serve? Are the words ‘no man can serve two masters’ obsolete and outmoded already?
- Formalization of Monetization of elections; monetization of elections has taken centre stage in Ghana’s political system. Our politics have become who can actually afford to pay the most instead of all the right and desirable virtues the citizenry should be on the lookout for. Let me pose this question to your conscience, “how many Ghanaians can compete against dual citizenship holders in terms of resources (which is the main driver of our elections) to win an election in Ghana?” What we are set to formalize and institute is the practise where the one with most resources is granted access to Parliament and government appointments. Is this what we really want?
Presently, our Parliament is filled by individuals whose families are citizens of other countries. Yet, we watch on whilst we vote these persons to parliament to make laws for us – laws that will not affect their descendants nor families. Key ministries like education and health have been headed by individuals who do not patronize public education and health care in any way. Yet they are the ones leading the policy directions of these ministries. Haven’t we had enough already? Do we want to formalize and strengthen this practice the more?
Eventually, we all have one Ghana, we can choose to help build it or destroy it. I pray you choose to be a part of the former. If the proponents of this change are very convinced in their stand and are of the view that this stand reflects what majority of the Ghanaian electorate wants, then I dare challenge us to subject this recommended review to a plebiscite.
Article by
