Former Tamale Central Member of Parliament Inusah Fuseini has strongly opposed the government’s proposal to increase the number of parliamentary seats to a maximum of 300. He warned that such an expansion would impose additional financial burdens on the state without addressing long-standing structural challenges within the legislature.

The government has endorsed a major constitutional reform that would set a maximum of 300 Members of Parliament. This reform would combine the existing constituency-based electoral system with a proportional representation component.

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Dominic Ayine, announced the decision while presenting the government’s White Paper on the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) on Thursday, July 30.

According to Dr Ayine, the proposal is intended to limit the cost of governance. Additionally, it aims to improve parliamentary representation for groups that have historically struggled to secure seats.

“The government has accepted that the size of Parliament be capped, and we propose a ceiling of 300 members. The current membership of Parliament is 276, and so these will be elected directly in constituency elections like we already have, and the remaining 24 will be elected or selected through proportional representation among women, persons with disabilities and the youth,” Dr Ayine said.

He explained that the current constituency-based system would remain unchanged. All 276 existing seats will continue to be filled through direct elections.

An additional 24 seats would then be allocated through proportional representation. Specifically, this aims to increase the participation of women, persons with disabilities (PWDs), and young people in Parliament.

Fuseini reacts

While acknowledging the importance of broader representation, Inusah Fuseini argued that increasing the number of MPs before reviewing the country’s constituency boundaries is the wrong approach.

He maintained that Ghana does not necessarily need more constituencies. Instead, he called for a comprehensive review of the current electoral map, which he said has created significant disparities in representation. Particularly in rural areas, voter-to-MP ratios vary widely.

According to him, constituency realignment should come first. After that, any additional seats could be introduced through proportional representation to enhance inclusiveness.

“Probably say, well, we’ll cap Parliament at 275. When we realign and get 250, then the 25 will be brought in by proportional representation. That was the thinking,” he explained.

Fuseini said proportional representation would give groups that often struggle under the first-past-the-post electoral system a better opportunity to gain representation in Parliament.

“The thinking behind proportional representation is to create an all-inclusive Parliament,” he said.

He identified women, young people, persons with disabilities and traditional leaders as groups that could benefit from such a system.

Despite supporting proportional representation, Fuseini firmly rejected the proposal to expand Parliament to 300 members. He described the figure as excessive and impractical.

“But 300, it’s too high. 300. The Chamber of Parliament cannot contain 300 people,” he said.

He noted that the current parliamentary chamber is already overcrowded, with some MPs seated against the rear wall. Increasing the number of legislators, he argued, would inevitably require the construction of a new parliamentary chamber at considerable cost.

“Even currently, they sit way back by the wall. So imagine if we add, then we have to build a new chamber, which is another fight,” he said.

Fuseini’s remarks underscore the broader debate over how best to reform Parliament. While the government’s White Paper presents the 300-seat cap as a way to improve inclusiveness through proportional representation, the former MP believes the priority should be correcting imbalances in the existing constituency boundaries first. Only then should Parliament introduce a limited number of proportional representation seats.

In his view, such a phased approach would achieve broader representation. Additionally, it would avoid imposing the significant infrastructure and recurrent costs associated with expanding the size of Parliament.