Dual Citizens for Public Office ... Council of State Advises Against Passage of Proposed Bill, 2025

Ghana's Council of State has advised against the passage of the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, which seeks to remove restrictions preventing dual citizens from holding certain public offices. This development marks a significant turn in a long-standing debate concerning the political participation of Ghanaians with dual nationality. The Bill, which aims to amend Articles 8(2) and 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, was initially supported by the Council but now faces opposition, despite its non-binding nature. The Council's advice underscores the persistent tension between diaspora inclusion and concerns over undivided national allegiance, particularly for sensitive state positions. This decision re-emphasizes the constitutional hurdles dual citizens face in aspiring to high public office and sets the stage for further parliamentary deliberation on this contentious issue.

The legislative landscape in Ghana has been stirred by a recent advisory from the Council of State, cautioning against the enactment of the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025. This Bill, a private member's initiative, aims to dismantle constitutional barriers that currently preclude Ghanaian citizens holding dual nationality from occupying specific public offices, including parliamentary seats and other sensitive state positions. Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, announced the Council's revised position, signaling a potential setback for proponents of broader diaspora participation in national governance.

This development is particularly noteworthy as the Council of State had previously advised Parliament to proceed with the constitutional amendment process when the Bill was first introduced. The reversal of its stance injects renewed complexity into a debate that has simmered for decades, pitting arguments for inclusivity and leveraging diaspora expertise against deeply entrenched concerns about national allegiance and potential conflicts of interest. For legal practitioners, this advisory highlights the enduring constitutional questions surrounding citizenship, political rights, and the delicate balance of national security interests.

The article will delve into the constitutional framework governing dual citizenship in Ghana, examine the specific provisions the proposed Bill seeks to amend, and analyze the implications of the Council of State's advisory. It will also touch upon relevant judicial pronouncements and the broader policy considerations that inform this critical national discourse, providing context for legal professionals navigating Ghana's evolving constitutional law.

The legal framework for citizenship in Ghana is primarily enshrined in the 1992 Constitution and the Citizenship Act, 2000 (Act 591). While Ghana initially prohibited dual citizenship, a significant amendment in 1996 to Article 8(1) of the 1992 Constitution allowed Ghanaian citizens to hold the citizenship of another country in addition to their Ghanaian citizenship. However, this liberalization was not absolute. Article 8(2) of the Constitution, as amended, explicitly lists several public offices that a dual citizen cannot hold, including Ambassador or High Commissioner, Secretary to the Cabinet, Chief of Defence Staff or any Service Chief, Inspector-General of Police, Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Preventive Service, and Director of Immigration Service, among others.

Further compounding these restrictions, Article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that a person is not qualified to be a Member of Parliament if they "owe allegiance to a country other than Ghana." This provision has been a focal point of contention, with debates often revolving around the interpretation of "allegiance" and whether holding dual citizenship automatically implies divided allegiance. The proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, directly targets these two articles, seeking to repeal Article 8(2) and Article 94(2)(a) to enable dual citizens to occupy these previously restricted positions.

The Council of State, established under Articles 89 to 92 of the 1992 Constitution, serves as an advisory body to the President, Parliament, and other state institutions on matters of national importance. Its role in the legislative process, particularly concerning constitutional amendments, is to offer counsel. While its advice is not legally binding on Parliament, it carries significant moral and political weight, reflecting the collective wisdom of eminent citizens. The Council's initial advice to Parliament to proceed with the Bill, followed by its recent reversal, underscores the profound and complex considerations at play.

The Council of State's recent advisory against the passage of the Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, marks a critical juncture in Ghana's constitutional development. The Bill's objective is to dismantle the restrictions imposed by Article 8(2) and Article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, which currently disqualify dual citizens from holding certain high public offices and from being elected as Members of Parliament, respectively. The rationale behind these restrictions has historically been rooted in concerns about undivided loyalty and potential conflicts of interest, particularly for positions deemed critical to national security and sovereignty.

The debate surrounding these provisions has been robust, with advocates for reform arguing that they disenfranchise a significant portion of the Ghanaian diaspora, preventing them from contributing their expertise to national development. They contend that modern constitutional interpretations should prioritize equal citizenship rights and reflect the realities of a globalized world where dual nationality is increasingly common. Conversely, opponents maintain that certain offices demand singular allegiance to Ghana, and that opening them to dual citizens could compromise national interests.

Judicial pronouncements have also shaped this landscape. In *Asare v Attorney General (2012)*, the Supreme Court clarified that dual nationals are citizens by operation of the Constitution and do not require mandatory documents to exercise their rights, except for appointment to some public offices. More recently, in May 2024, the Supreme Court further intervened by striking down provisions of the Citizenship Act that had administratively extended the list of restricted offices beyond what the Constitution itself specified, ruling such extensions unconstitutional. This decision underscored the judiciary's role in delineating the boundaries of dual citizenship rights and highlighted the legal delicacy of the issue.

The Council of State's current advice, delivered under Article 291(2) of the 1992 Constitution, represents a direct check on a policy priority that has garnered support from some political figures. While the advice is not binding, its reversal from an earlier position of support for the amendment process suggests a deepening of concerns within the advisory body regarding the implications of the proposed changes. The Speaker of Parliament has referred the Bill to the Constitutional and Legal Committee, indicating that the legislative process will continue, albeit with the significant weight of the Council's opposition. This sets the stage for intense parliamentary debate, where the arguments for and against the amendments will be thoroughly ventilated, potentially influencing the final outcome.

The distinction between "dual citizenship" in Article 8(2) and "owing allegiance to a country other than Ghana" in Article 94(2)(a) is also a point of legal nuance. While the Bill seeks to repeal both, the concept of allegiance can be interpreted differently from merely holding another citizenship. Critics of the current restrictions argue that allegiance is a cultural and emotional tie not necessarily negated by holding a second passport, and that the current provisions create a form of "fractional citizenship" for millions of Ghanaians abroad.

The Council of State's advisory against the Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, presents a formidable challenge to the aspirations of dual citizens seeking full political participation in Ghana. For legal practitioners, this development signals continued uncertainty and potential litigation surrounding the interpretation and application of citizenship laws, particularly Articles 8(2) and 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution. The non-binding nature of the Council's advice means that Parliament retains the ultimate authority to decide the Bill's fate, but the strong opposition from such a respected constitutional body cannot be easily dismissed.

Practitioners should closely monitor the parliamentary proceedings, particularly the deliberations of the Constitutional and Legal Committee, as the debate is likely to be intense and may lead to further amendments or a re-evaluation of the Bill's scope. The outcome will have profound implications for the rights of dual citizens, the composition of Ghana's public service, and the broader relationship between the nation and its extensive diaspora. This ongoing constitutional discourse underscores the dynamic nature of Ghana's legal framework and the persistent tension between historical concerns for national unity and contemporary demands for inclusivity.