Ghana 1992 Constitution Bias Towards Women

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:

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:

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.

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:

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):

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:

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.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.