The recommendation by the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) to lower the qualifying age for the Presidency from 40 to 30 years is commendable. It is a nod to changing times and a victory for advocacy, representing a crack in the ceiling of gerontocracy that has long hovered over Ghana’s political landscape.
However, a mere nod is insufficient at this crossroads of history. We require a bold, decisive embrace of the future. As a leadership coach and Pan-Africanist committed to the liberation of potential, I argue that stopping at 30 is a half-measure that denies scientific, social and historical realities of leadership. To unleash the dynamism required for modern governance, we must courageously lower eligibility to 18 or 21. This is not a plea for inclusion; it is a demand for democratic integrity and operational efficiency.
The science of leadership: Cognitive peak and neuroplasticity
Opposition to youth leadership often stems from misunderstanding brain development. Neuroscience dismantles the myth that age equals functional competence. Science distinguishes “crystallised intelligence” — knowledge accumulated with age — from “fluid intelligence” — the ability to solve new problems, identify patterns and apply logic in novel situations.
Research shows fluid intelligence peaks between 18 and 21. In a world of rapid technological disruption and unprecedented challenges, the ability to process new information quickly — a strength of the youthful brain — is more critical than reliance on old paradigms. Neuroplasticity further proves younger brains learn and adapt faster.
If a 21-year-old can master neurosurgery, quantum physics or military strategy, it is scientifically inconsistent to claim they lack the hardware for statecraft. Leadership is behavioural discipline, not a biological gift of ageing.
The corporate reality: Billion-dollar empires led by the youth
Modern leadership capacity is evident in the global economic theatre, where youth lead high-stakes innovation. Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook at 19 and steered a multi-billion-dollar platform in his early 20s. More recently, Mercor’s founders reached a $10-billion valuation at 22.
If markets trust a 21-year-old to manage livelihoods, investor capital and international regulations, it exposes hypocrisy in assuming such a person is unfit to lead a nation. Competence today is digital, agile and innovative — the native language of youth.
Social science and the definition of maturity
Maturity is not time lived but character, competence and collaboration. We see “irresponsible elders” and “wise youth” daily. Leadership thrives on emotional intelligence, inspiration, humility and learning — traits cultivated, not gifted by age.
A 21-year-old who has led student unions, community projects or built a business may have more functional leadership mileage than a 50-year-old with dormant civic engagement. Leadership must value intensity of experience over duration of existence.
The constitutional paradox: The “Acting President” loophole
A logical inconsistency strengthens the case for lowering the age further. The law qualifies a citizen to be an MP at 21. The President appoints Ministers from Parliament. Thus, a 21-year-old MP may serve as Minister overseeing finance, defence or education.
The CRC’s own reform recommendation states that in the absence of both President and Vice President, the Cabinet shall elect an Acting President from among Ministers. This creates a scenario where a 21-year-old Minister could legally command the armed forces during a crisis.
If the constitution trusts a 21-year-old to be Acting President for any duration, it is logically bankrupt to claim they cannot be elected for a full term. The constitution must be harmonised to remove this absurdity.
Democracy, demographics and the rights of the majority
Democracy must be examined through Lincoln’s definition: “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” In Ghana, persons under 35 form about 73% of the population — a nation of youth.
Yet, most of this majority is barred from the Presidency. To say they are wise enough to choose leaders but not wise enough to lead is disenfranchisement. Representation demands leadership reflect population realities. A government of the people must look like the people.
Historical precedence: The African revolutionary spirit
Africa’s history is full of young giants who led nation-shaping transformation. Thomas Sankara led Burkina Faso at 33, but his ideological clarity was forged in his 20s. Patrice Lumumba became Prime Minister at 35, leading independence with intellect that terrified colonial powers.
Muammar Gaddafi assumed power at 27, driving major infrastructure and economic change. Sierra Leone’s Valentine Strasser became Head of State at 25. Traditionally, Africa trusted young Kings and Queens guided by councils, yet leading with vigour. Our ancestors trusted youth with sacred stools — we can trust them with the Presidency.
The Biblical mandate: Divine trust in youth
Biblical archives show Divinity often turns to youth for national transformation. David defeated Goliath and was anointed King likely before 20. Solomon ascended in his early 20s, defined by wisdom through counsel.
Joseph governed Egypt’s superpower economy at 30, prepared through trials in his 20s. These leaders excelled, proving leadership spirit is not bound by time.
Conclusion
Lowering the age to 30 is a step, but timid. To align with brain science, corporate competence, constitutional logic, demographics and heroic precedence, we must lower the age to 18 or 21.
The youth are not waiting for tomorrow to lead — they are building the world today.
The writer is the President of RAGeT-AFRICA and National Coordinator of the Ghana Youth Manifesto Coalition.
BY CHRISTOPHER WISDOM
PENU
🔗 Follow Ghanaian Times WhatsApp Channel today. https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbAjG7g3gvWajUAEX12Q
🌍 Trusted News. Real Stories. Anytime, Anywhere.
✅ Join our WhatsApp Channel now! https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbAjG7g3gvWajUAEX12Q
