The Centre for Democratic Development, Ghana (CDD-Ghana) has raised concerns about the pace and procedure of lawmaking in Parliament during the first year of President John Dramani Mahama’s administration, cautioning that the frequent use of the certificate of urgency and the rapid passage of bills could weaken legislative checks and balances.
These concerns were outlined during the think-tank’s one-year governance assessment, presented by Dr. Kojo Pumpuni Asante, Director of Policy Engagement and Partnerships at CDD-Ghana.
Dr. Asante framed his assessment within the broader context of parliamentary oversight under a dominant majority. He noted that the National Democratic Congress entered office with a two thirds majority in Parliament, a numerical strength that confers significant legislative power.
While such dominance can facilitate swift policy action, he argued that it also carries risks if not tempered by restraint and respect for minority participation. He acknowledged positive institutional reforms that predate the current administration but continue to shape parliamentary practice.
“I think Parliament has to be commended for the progressive standing orders that were adopted in 2024. Because that now allows for – I think the opposition chairs 14 committees of Parliament. And that has expanded the ability for the opposition to really play the checks and balances role in Parliament”.
Dr. Kojo Pumpuni Asante, Director of Policy Engagement and Partnerships at CDD-Ghana
According to Dr. Asante, committee leadership is central to effective checks and balances. Parliamentary committees play a critical role in scrutinising bills, examining public expenditure, and holding ministers and agencies accountable.
By allowing opposition members to chair a substantial number of committees, Parliament has strengthened its internal accountability mechanisms, even in the context of a strong governing majority.
Gains Risk by Procedural Practices
However, the assessment emphasised that these gains risk being undermined by procedural practices that limit deliberation. Dr. Asante identified the use of the certificate of urgency as a primary concern.
He explained that urgency procedures are intended for exceptional circumstances, yet their frequent application in a Parliament dominated by a two-thirds majority can sideline the minority and curtail debate.
Beyond the certificate of urgency, CDD-Ghana flagged a broader trend of rushed legislation. Dr. Asante cited figures indicating that nearly fifty four percent of bills were concluded within a single week.
In his view, such speed raises questions about the depth of scrutiny and the extent of public engagement, particularly when the legislation involved has far reaching social and economic implications.
He pointed to several high impact bills that were passed under accelerated timelines. These include legislation regulating commercial motorcycle transport, commonly referred to as Okada, laws governing cryptocurrency and digital assets, and a bill imposing a one cedi levy on petroleum products.
Dr. Asante stressed that these measures affect large segments of the population and the economy, making thorough consultation essential. According to the CDD-Ghana presentation, the concern is not simply about legislative efficiency but about democratic legitimacy.
Dr. Asante argued that Parliament’s role extends beyond passing laws quickly. It is also expected to provide a platform for citizen voices, stakeholder input, and careful consideration of policy trade offs. When bills are rushed, this representative function is weakened.
He warned that the combination of a dominant majority, urgency procedures, and accelerated timelines creates an imbalance that can erode trust in Parliament. Even well intentioned laws may face public resistance if citizens feel excluded from the process.
Confidence in Democratic Institutions at Risk
Over time, this dynamic could undermine confidence in democratic institutions. Dr. Asante also drew attention to the broader principle of checks and balances within a constitutional democracy.
He noted that strong majorities have an obligation to exercise power responsibly, recognising that minority rights and deliberative norms are essential safeguards.
In his assessment, the true test of democratic maturity lies not in the absence of power but in how that power is used. The CDD-Ghana review suggested that parliamentary culture is as important as formal rules.
While the Standing Orders provide mechanisms for opposition involvement, their effectiveness depends on political will and adherence to democratic values. Dr. Asante argued that procedural shortcuts, if normalised, can hollow out even the most progressive institutional reforms.
He emphasised that checks and balances should not be viewed as obstacles to governance. Rather, they improve policy quality by exposing proposals to scrutiny and alternative perspectives. Laws shaped through inclusive processes, he said, are more likely to be effective, durable, and publicly accepted.
The assessment placed these parliamentary concerns within the wider evaluation of the Mahama administration’s first year. While acknowledging efforts to stabilise key sectors and reset policy direction, CDD-Ghana underscored the need for vigilance in protecting democratic procedures.
Parliament, as the central arena of lawmaking and oversight, was identified as a critical site for sustaining accountability. Dr. Asante concluded that Ghana’s democracy benefits when efficiency is balanced with deliberation.
He argued that the progress made through expanded opposition committee leadership should be consolidated by reducing reliance on urgency procedures and allowing more time for public engagement on major bills.
In his view, legislative restraint strengthens rather than weakens governance. As Ghana moves forward under the current parliamentary configuration, CDD-Ghana indicated that it will continue to monitor lawmaking practices closely.
The think-tank maintained that safeguarding checks and balances is not about slowing development but about ensuring that policy decisions are grounded in consultation, transparency, and respect for democratic norms. The long-term resilience of Ghana’s democracy, it argued, depends on Parliament’s ability to balance power with accountability.
