Constitutional law expert Henry Kwasi Prempeh has clarified the often-blurred distinction between a committee and a commission in Ghana’s governance framework, saying the difference has implications for procedure, accountability and outcomes.
Speaking on Point of View with Bernard Avle, Prempeh, chairman of the current Constitutional Review Committee (CRC), said the terms are frequently used interchangeably but are not the same in law. He explained that unlike the first Constitutional Review Commission, which was established through a constitutional instrument (C.I.), the current CRC was set up without a specific legal instrument.
“The earlier commission was created pursuant to a C.I., which gave it a defined constitutional status,” Prempeh said. “Ours was set up as an advisory committee, not under that formal process.”
He traced the distinction to a Supreme Court ruling following a lawsuit that challenged the president’s authority to initiate constitutional reforms. The court held that advisory and preparatory work on constitutional reform falls within the president’s powers, allowing such bodies to be established without a formal instrument.
Prempeh noted that the difference may explain why the current review process has not produced a white paper, a document traditionally issued after reports by commissions of inquiry. Under the Constitution, white papers are tied to bodies created through formal instruments and governed by specific procedures.
“Because we were not set up under that process, it arguably removes the requirement for a white paper,” he said, while adding that the issue remains open to interpretation.
The clarification comes amid public debate over transparency and accountability in constitutional reform efforts.