Tensions Rise Over The Potential Extension of GFA President’s Tenure

The proposed change to expand the Ghana Football Association (GFA) presidential term restriction from two to three terms has aroused substantial debate among the football community, as it raises questions about governance, accountability, and personal ambition. Based on current events, the main arguments for why this idea is controversial are listed below.

Opponents contend that increasing the term limit could strengthen individual influence at the price of institutional stability. One such critic is Vincent Ekow Assafuah, a Member of Parliament and Ranking Member of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Youth and Sports.

In order to minimize power concentration in the wake of the 2018 Anas exposé, which exposed extensive corruption, the FIFA Normalization Committee purposefully limited the presidency to two terms in the 2019 GFA statutes. Some believe that altering this provision will undermine those changes and give incumbent President Kurt Okraku the opportunity to serve longer than the allotted eight years.

Prominent individuals such as Elloeny Amande, the CEO of Karela United, have referred to the idea as a “power-drunk decision” that goes against the accountability standards put in place after 2018. The two-term limit, according to Amande and others, is consistent with national governance norms, such as Ghana’s presidential term limits, and they wonder why the GFA should depart from them.

George Siaja, the chairman of the Referees Association of Ghana (RAG), also denied supporting the extension, demonstrating opposition from important stakeholder organizations. This resistance reveals a gap between those who favor the change for continuity and others who believe it to be retrograde.

The amendment’s supporters, some of whom are members of the GFA’s Statutes Review Committee, contend that extending the term limit aligns with international best practices, as FIFA and CAF allow their presidents up to three terms.

According to them, it would guarantee continuity and encourage long-term plans for Ghanaian football’s development. Ibrahim Sannie Daara, a former director of GFA communications, for example, said the move would be advantageous for football’s future. This argument is controversial, though, as some doubt whether the goal is actually development or gaining more time for the existing administration.

The idea has stoked rumors that it is intended to help Kurt Okraku, who is now serving his first term and may be able to stay in office longer if the change is approved. Suspicions have not been allayed despite GFA General Secretary Prosper Harrison Addo’s clarification that clubs and other member bodies, not the GFA leadership, were the original source of the plan. Stakeholder skepticism has grown as a result of critics like sports journalist Jerome Otchere raising doubts about whether the affiliation with FIFA and CAF is a front.

Latest FIFA World Cup 2026 Updates

The 2018 Anas documentary revealed the GFA’s history of corruption, which makes any attempt to change government institutions extremely delicate. Restoring confidence was the goal of the GFA’s 2018 dissolution and the FIFA Normalization Committee’s subsequent changes. Some believe that proposals to increase term limits run the risk of reviving the problems that caused the GFA to dissolve, which would split proponents of reform from supporters of leadership continuity.

Assafuah has emphasized that the government should maintain its neutrality and issued a warning against political meddling in football governance. According to Addo, the participation of clubs and regional organizations in promoting the amendment raises questions regarding outside influences or vested interests, further polarizing the football community.

The debate will likely intensify at the GFA’s 31st Ordinary Congress on August 12, 2025, where delegates will vote on the proposal. The outcome could significantly reshape trust and leadership dynamics within Ghanaian football, with stakeholders split between those who see the extension as necessary for progress and those who view it as a step backward for accountability.