If you read or listen a lot, chances are that you may have probably come across the idiom “old habits die hard.”
The expression is a simpler, kinder way of describing the difficulty in changing behavioural patterns or routines that someone or a group has/have been doing for a long time.
For this reason, even if prevented by circumstances beyond their control, they will circle back to the same, predictable habits.
To that extent, it is a fitting description of the Ghana Football Association’s (GFA) fixation with extending the term limit of its presidency.
Why?
In the notice of congress sent to members of the association, the GFA said the proposal is necessary to “align with CAF and FIFA statutes, and to conform with the three-term limits of the vice president and members of the Executive Council.”
The attempt to draw parallels with CAF and FIFA’s statutes is a sorry attempt at justification.
It essentially says FIFA’s reasons are our reasons.
What problem does a three-term mandate solve for Ghana Football?
What programs cannot be implemented effectively within an eight-year cycle?
So far, the GFA has said exactly why it is in anyone’s interest to have a three-year limit.
More to the point, by referencing FIFA and CAF, it assumes that institutional checks and the management culture that exists in those jurisdictions exist here, and are just as effective.
That is not the case.
At FIFA, the structures and human resources are of a significantly higher quality.
The Council is composed of 37 members, including the FIFA resident, eight vice-presidents, and 28 other members elected by member associations.
Its highest decision-making body, the FIFA Congress, is composed of delegates representing all 211 FIFA Member Associations.
Each of these individuals has extensive experience as football administrators from club level through to federation level, implementing unique policies for decades.
In stark contrast, the GFA’s Executive Council is filled with upstarts and individuals who lack the clout and personality to robustly oppose the regime when necessary.
Congress is even worse. At Congress, clubs are represented by the least busy employee or the official who is on good terms with the regime.
That is why in the past two weeks, clubs like Nations F.C., Gold Stars, etc. have lined up to defend the proposal without offering any reason or establishing the need for it.
As for institutions, the status review committee instituted by the current regimes is what teamed up with apologists of the establishment to produce this proposal.
On Tuesday, the proposal will be approved by Congress in all likelihood.
When it does, it will not only betray the essence of the two-term limit, but it will also erode any gains made in the effort to cleanse the image of the association since the Anas exposé.
You see, the term limit was the new GFA’s way of telling the world that it would not entertain any leader with dictatorial tendencies. It would not allow any president to become too powerful to bend its regulations to suit their parochial interest.
More importantly, it was a way of showing the long-alienated public that it respected their sentiments and would consider that in this journey together into a bold new world.
This flies in the face of that.
Not only the idea, but also the manner in which they have gone about it.
Across multiple press engagements by Communications Director, Henry Asante Twum, and General Secretary, Prosper Harrison Addo, there has not been any attempt to explain the main rationale behind it and carry the rest of us along.
Except to say that this is what the football people want, and this is what they would do.
Even the real sponsors and proponents of the proposal remain hidden.
In its notice to Congress members, the GFA only said the proposal was brought by a member with support from over forty football clubs.
Elloeny Amande, a member of the GFA, called out the dictatorial tendencies of the regime.
Its former president, Dr. Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe, has also warned against following the same path that led to Kwesi Nyantakyi’s downfall.
The GFA has also had its say and will likely prevail tomorrow, August 12, 2025.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
