Debate on Proposed Age Limit for MPs Sparks Public Interest
Dr. Ernest Daffor, Director of Parliamentary Training, has weighed in on the ongoing discussions surrounding the proposed age limit for Members of Parliament (MPs), emphasizing that age alone should not determine a legislator’s effectiveness.
Speaking on Kessben TV’s Digest, Dr. Daffor argued that parliamentary performance cannot be tied strictly to age, noting that experience often enhances the quality of representation. “In training MPs, one cannot outline which age group catches up faster with proceedings. The longer one stays in Parliament, the better they often become,” he stated.
He further stressed that MPs are elected by their constituents based on trust and competence, and therefore imposing an upper age limit could undermine democratic choice. “These individuals have been voted for by their people to represent them. You cannot use age to negate their mandate,” he added.
According to Dr. Daffor, there is currently no constitutional age ceiling for parliamentary service, besides only about 25 MPs in our 9th Parliament are above the age of 65, while the majority are under 60. He maintained that introducing an upper age restriction would raise concerns about fairness and inclusivity.
Touching on global practices, Dr. Daffor pointed out that many established democracies prioritize minimum age requirements—reflecting maturity—rather than maximum limits. He cited the United Kingdom as an example, where some MPs serve effectively into their 80s.
“The real issue should be mental capacity, not chronological age,” he emphasized, calling for a more nuanced approach to the debate.
He concluded by noting that should a bill proposing an age limit be presented before Parliament, it would ultimately be subject to public scrutiny and input before any decision is made.
The discussion continues to generate mixed reactions among citizens, with many calling for a balance between experience and renewal in political leadership.
