A supreme legal text serves not only as a functional code of governance but also as the psychological and symbolic foundation of a republic. Ghana’s 1992 Constitution is celebrated across the African continent as an enduring democratic charter, enriched by formal guarantees against discrimination on the grounds of gender. However, a rigorous textual examination of its language, structural provisions, and normative assumptions reveals an entrenched patriarchal bias. Far from presenting gender-inclusive governance, the supreme law consistently frames political authority as male, institutionalizes domestic gender roles, and maintains constitutional loopholes that protect discriminatory personal and customary laws.
This critique transcends mere semantic debate. In constitutional jurisprudence, drafting choices carry monumental consequence. The persistent androcentric framing of public power signals an implicit assumption: that statecraft is fundamentally the domain of men, while women exist as an incidental after-thought.
1. The Masculine Monopoly: Offices Presumed for Men
Traditional statutory interpretation relies on standard legislative conventions (such as Ghana’s Interpretation Act), which stipulate that words importing the masculine gender include the feminine. Nevertheless, constitutional texts carry unique normative force. The repetitive, unyielding use of male pronouns when establishing every major organ of state normalizes the exclusion of women.
A. The Presidency and Executive Authority
The office of the President is articulated under Chapter Eight of the Constitution. While Article 62 outlines presidential eligibility without explicit gender disqualification, subsequent substantive and operational articles universally assume a male incumbent:
- Article 57(1): Establishing the Head of State, Head of Government, and Commander-in-Chief.
- Article 59: Declaring that “he shall not leave Ghana without prior notification to the Speaker of Parliament.”
- Article 68(1): Providing that the President shall not hold any other office of profit or emolument, and stipulating terms for “his salary, allowances and facilities.”
- Article 60 & Article 67: Mandating how “he” delivers the State of the Nation address and how “he” executes executive authority.
| “The President shall receive such salary, allowances and facilities as may be prescribed by Parliament… and the salary, allowances and facilities paid to him under this article shall be exempt from tax.”— Article 68(1), 1992 Constitution of Ghana |
B. The Speaker and the Legislative Arm
Under Chapter Ten, the Speaker of Parliament is cast in identical male terms. Article 95 delineates the office, stating under Clause (2) that the Speaker shall vacate “his” office upon specific conditions. Article 101 commands that “he” shall preside at every sitting of Parliament, cementing the presumption that the presiding authority of the legislature is inevitably a man.
C. The Judiciary and Independent Constitutional Bodies
The administration of justice exhibits the same linguistic architecture. In Article 144 and Article 145, establishing the tenure and qualifications of Superior Court judges, the text repeatedly specifies:
- • Article 145(1): “A person holding office as a Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature… may retire at any time after attaining the age of sixty years, and shall vacate his office in the case of the Chief Justice on attaining the age of seventy years…”
- • Qualifications across the bench insistently employ phrases specifying that “he has had not less than fifteen years’ standing as a lawyer.”
Identical patterns pervade the provisions establishing the Council of State (Article 89), the Electoral Commission (Article 43), the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (Article 217), and the Auditor-General (Article 187). In every instance, authority is grammatically coded as “he”, “him”, and “his”.
2. The Paradox of Article 27: Constitutionalizing the Domestic Division of Labor
The critique of bias is not confined to pronouns; it penetrates the substantive conceptualization of women’s civic and social status. While Article 17(2) explicitly proscribes discrimination based on gender, Article 27—entitled “Women’s Rights”—reveals deeply patronizing and stereotypical underpinnings.
| “Facilities shall be provided for the care of children below school-going age to enable women, who have the traditional care for children, realise their full potential.”— Article 27(2), 1992 Constitution of Ghana |
At first glance, Article 27(2) appears to be a progressive welfare guarantee aimed at supporting maternal welfare. However, the clause “who have the traditional care for children” carries destructive juridical implications:
- Reinforcement of Domesticity: It constitutionally solidifies child-care and domestic unpaid labor strictly as a female obligation rather than a shared parental, familial, and societal responsibility.
- Justification for State Concession: It frames state support not as a universal civic right or child welfare mandate, but as a special concession to liberate women from their biologically and culturally preordained domestic burdens.
- Exclusion of Paternal Care: By omitting fathers entirely from constitutional parental duty, it insulates men from domestic responsibility while legally categorizing women’s societal value through the prism of motherhood.
3. The Customary Claw-Back: Article 17(4)(b)
A constitutional document cannot be judged solely by its aspirational preambles, but by its operational exceptions. Article 17 guarantees equality before the law, yet contains a devastating claw-back clause in Article 17(4)(b):
| “Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from enacting laws that are reasonably necessary to provide… for matters relating to adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, devolution of property on death or other matters of personal law.”— Article 17(4)(b), 1992 Constitution of Ghana |
In Ghana, personal law is inextricably tied to customary and religious traditions. Many traditional frameworks across patrilineal and matrilineal systems historically enforce male-centric succession, deny equal land ownership to surviving widows, or vest family headship and communal property management exclusively in male elders. By shielding “personal law” from the anti-discrimination mandate of Article 17, the Constitution effectively immunizes deep-seated gender disparities in marriage, divorce, and inheritance from constitutional invalidation.
4. Chieftaincy and the Marginalization of Queen Mothers
Under Chapter Twenty-Two, the 1992 Constitution guarantees the institution of chieftaincy along with its traditional councils. Historically and functionally, however, national and regional Houses of Chiefs have marginalized Queen Mothers. Even though Queen Mothers are indispensable kingmakers in Akan and other customary polities, the statutory composition and constitutional framing of the National House of Chiefs historically operated as an exclusively male enclave, with full representation and judicial powers restricted primarily to male chiefs.
5. The Imperative for Constitutional Reform
The gendered defects of the 1992 Constitution have not gone unnoticed by Ghana’s legal reformers. The Constitution Review Commission (CRC), established under the Constitution Review Commission Act, 2010 (Act 799), explicitly examined these discrepancies and recommended urgent constitutional amendments:
| Constitutional Arena | Required Reform Measure |
| Linguistic Neutrality | Amend Articles 57, 59, 68, 89, 95, 144, 145, 187, and 217 to replace exclusive male pronouns (‘he’, ‘his’) with gender-neutral terminology (‘the President’, ‘the Justice’, ‘they’, or ‘he or she’). |
| Parental & Childcare Reframing | Revise Article 27(2) to excise the patronizing clause ‘who have the traditional care for children,’ framing childcare as a shared parental responsibility and collective national interest. |
| Repeal of Personal Law Shield | Subject Article 17(4)(b) to strict fundamental human rights standards so that customary and personal laws cannot perpetuate discrimination in marriage, property, and inheritance. |
Conclusion: Words Shape Reality
Constitutions do not merely allocate institutional power; they define who is recognized as a leader and what roles are envisioned for its citizens. While Ghana has made notable strides with the passage of affirmative action legislation, the foundational text remains encumbered by linguistic androcentrism and structural patriarchal compromises.
To genuinely fulfill the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and justice, the 1992 Constitution must be stripped of its presumption that the Presidency, the Bench, and the Speaker’s Chair are inherently male sanctuaries. A modern Ghanaian Republic requires a supreme document whose words unambiguously declare that leadership belongs equally to women and men.
| ABOUT THE AUTHOR Lanslord Asumakah Academic Credentials: • MBA – Liverpool John Moores University • MSc – University of Cape Coast • BSc in Business Administration (Accounting) – Ghana Baptist University • Diploma in Commerce – University of Cape Coast • Postgraduate Certificate in Management – London Bridge Business School • Executive Certificate in Business Administration – Accra Business School • Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) Candidate – Central University Selected Books & Journal Publications: • Book: Mastering Credit Management: Practical Guide to Evaluating, Processing and Recovering Loans with Confidence • Book (Manuscript / Forthcoming): Informal Sector Lending: The Difficulties of Granting Loans to the Informal Sector (Individual & Group Micro Loans) in Ghana (Africa) • Academic Journal Publication: Adoption of Green Innovation by SMEs: A Sectoral Analysis |