As Ghana reflects on the future relevance and resilience of its 1992 Constitution, one provision that continues to generate significant national debate is Article 62(b), which sets the minimum age for presidential eligibility at forty years.
In the context of today’s democratic, educational, and governance realities, this requirement increasingly appears outdated and misaligned with modern leadership dynamics.
Article 62(b) states that a person is not qualified to contest the office of President unless he or she has attained the age of forty. While this threshold may have been informed by earlier assumptions about maturity and leadership, it no longer adequately reflects contemporary Ghanaian society, where education, exposure, and professional experience are acquired much earlier in life.
At the heart of the debate is the principle that age alone is not a reliable measure of competence, wisdom, or leadership capacity. Effective leadership is better assessed through integrity, experience, performance, commitment, and education.
Ghana’s own governance history provides ample evidence of younger leaders excelling in ministerial, parliamentary, and strategic national roles, demonstrating that ability, not age, is the true determinant of effective leadership.
This constitutional requirement also raises questions of fairness and consistency. The Constitution entrusts citizens from the age of eighteen with the sovereign power to vote and determine who governs the country.
Yet, the same citizens are deemed ineligible to be chosen as President until they reach forty, regardless of their competence or experience. This disparity undermines democratic inclusion and restricts the electorate’s freedom to choose from a broader pool of capable candidates.
Ghana’s political history further weakens the argument for a rigid age threshold. The 1960 Republican Constitution set the minimum presidential age at thirty-five, a provision under which Dr. Kwame Nkrumah led Ghana during its most transformative period.
Nkrumah was in his thirties when he emerged as a central figure in the independence struggle and later assumed leadership roles that shaped the nation’s destiny.
Similarly, Flight Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings first assumed national leadership in his early thirties, while former President John Agyekum Kufuor served as Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs at thirty-one and led Ghana’s delegation to the United Nations shortly thereafter.
Other leaders, including General Akwasi Afrifa and Colonel Ignatius Kutu Acheampong, also assumed head-of-state roles before the age of forty. These historical precedents clearly show that leadership in Ghana has never been inherently age-bound.
Contemporary governance continues to reinforce this reality. Recent appointments of younger ministers, deputy ministers, and members of the Council of State highlight an ongoing reliance on competence rather than age.
These individuals have been entrusted with sensitive and strategic responsibilities, demonstrating that younger citizens can contribute meaningfully at the highest levels of decision-making.
Globally and across Africa, leadership trends increasingly prioritize merit over age. Several countries have witnessed effective leadership by individuals in their thirties, underscoring a growing international consensus that competence and vision matter more than chronological age. Ghana cannot afford to ignore these evolving standards if it seeks to remain a progressive and inclusive democracy.
Education and professional development also occur far earlier today than in previous generations. With many Ghanaians completing tertiary education in their early twenties, a citizen at thirty-five may already possess over a decade of professional, civic, or political experience. Such individuals may have served multiple terms in Parliament, risen through the ranks of the security services, achieved senior positions in law, business, or international organizations, or held significant public office.
To exclude them from presidential eligibility solely on age grounds is increasingly difficult to justify.
International and regional youth frameworks, including those of the African Union and the United Nations, define youth as individuals between eighteen and thirty-five. Aligning Ghana’s presidential age requirement with this benchmark would promote inclusivity, encourage innovation, and strengthen merit-based leadership, while deepening trust between the state and its citizens.
Reducing the presidential age limit from forty to thirty-five would not lower leadership standards. Rather, it would broaden democratic choice, encourage youth participation, and reflect contemporary realities.
Importantly, constitutional safeguards remain firmly in place through electoral competition, voter scrutiny, and institutional checks and balances. Ultimately, the Ghanaian people retain the sovereign authority to decide who leads them.
It is therefore recommended that Article 62(b) of the 1992 Constitution be amended to state that a person shall not be qualified for election as President unless that person has attained the age of thirty-five years.
Revisiting this provision is not about dismantling tradition but about aligning Ghana’s supreme law with fairness, inclusion, and modern governance. If a citizen is considered mature enough to elect a President, that citizen—if otherwise qualified—should also be eligible to be elected.
This is a necessary national conversation that speaks to the future of Ghana’s democracy.
