The recommendation by the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) to lower the qualifying age for the Presidency from 40 to 30 years is a commendable gesture, a nod to the changing times, and a victory for advocacy. It represents a crack in the ceiling of gerontocracy that has long hovered over our political landscape. However, as we stand at the crossroads of history, a mere nod is insufficient; we require a bold, decisive embrace of the future. As a leadership coach and a Pan-Africanist dedicated to the liberation of potential, I argue that stopping at 30 is a half-measure that denies the scientific, social, and historical realities of leadership. To truly unleash the dynamism required for modern governance, we must courageously lower the age of eligibility to 18 or 21 years. This is not merely a plea for inclusion; it is a demand for democratic integrity and operational efficiency.

The Science of Leadership: Cognitive Peak and Neuroplasticity

The argument against youth leadership is often anchored in a misunderstanding of biology, specifically the development of the human brain. However, a rigorous examination of neuroscience dismantles the myth that age equals functional competence. Scientific evidence distinguishes between "crystallized intelligence"—the accumulation of knowledge, which grows with age—and "fluid intelligence,"which is the capacity to solve novel problems, identify patterns, and use logic in new situations. Research establishes that fluid intelligence peaks in late adolescence and early adulthood, specifically between the ages of 18 and 21. In a world defined by rapid technological disruption and complex, unprecedented challenges, the ability to process new information quickly—a strength of the youthful brain—is arguably more critical than the reliance on old paradigms. Furthermore, the concept of neuroplasticity reveals that younger brains are more adaptable and capable of learning at speed. If a 21-year-olds brain is biologically primed to master complex fields such as neurosurgery, quantum physics, or military strategy, it is scientifically inconsistent to claim it lacks the hardware for statecraft. Leadership is an art of science; it is a behavioral discipline, not a biological byproduct of aging.

The Corporate Reality: Billion-Dollar Empires Led by the Youth

We cannot discuss leadership capability without looking at the global economic theatre, where the youth are not just participants but dominant commanders. The corporate world, which is arguably as complex and high-stakes as national governance, has long recognized and rewarded youthful competence. We are living in an era where young visionaries are building and managing multi-billion dollar entities from scratch, wielding budgets larger than the GDPs of many African nations. Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook at age 19; by his early 20s, he was steering a platform that would redefine global communication. More recently, the founders of the AI startup Mercor reached a valuation of over $10 billion while they were just 22 years old. If the global market trusts a 21-year-old to manage the livelihoods of thousands of employees, secure billions in investor capital, and navigate complex international regulations, it exposes a deep hypocrisy in our political system to suggest that same individual is unfit to lead a nation. Competence in the 21st century is digital, agile, and innovative—traits that are the native language of the youth.

Social Science and the Definition of Maturity

From a social science perspective, we must deconstruct the archaic definition of maturity. Maturity is not a linear function of time lived; it is a product of Character, Competence, and Effective Collaboration. We observe daily the phenomenon of the "irresponsible elder"and the "wise youth,"proving that character is independent of the calendar. Leadership effectiveness is rooted in emotional intelligence, the ability to inspire, and the humility to learn—traits that are either inherited or cultivated, not bestowed by a birthday. A 21-year-old who has actively led student unions, managed community projects, or built a business has accrued more functional leadership mileage than a 50-year-old with a dormant civic life. If we accept that leadership is learned, then we must value the intensity of experience over the duration of existence.

The Constitutional Paradox: The "Acting President"Loophole

There exists a glaring logical inconsistency in our current and proposed constitutional framework that makes the case for 21 unassailable. Under our laws, a citizen is qualified to be a Member of Parliament (MP) at age 21. By constitutional design, the President appoints Ministers of State from Parliament. Therefore, a 21-year-old MP is fully qualified to be a Minister, overseeing critical sectors like Finance, Defense, or Education. The CRCs own recommendation for cabinet reform suggests that in the absence of both the President and the Vice President, the Cabinet shall elect one of its own to serve as Acting President. This creates a scenario where a 21-year-old Minister could legally be elected by their peers to hold the highest office in the land, commanding the armed forces and steering the nation during a crisis. If the Constitution deems a 21-year-old capable of being Acting President for a day, a month, or a year, it is logically bankrupt to argue they are incapable of being elected to do so for a full term. We must harmonize the constitution to remove this absurdity.

Democracy, Demographics, and the Rights of the Majority

We must also interrogate the very soul of our democracy through the lens of Abraham Lincolns definition: "government of the people, by the people, for the people."In Ghana, the demographic data is stark and undeniable; the youth (those under 35) constitute approximately 73% of the entire population. We are a nation of the young. Yet, we operate a political system where the vast majority of "the people"are legally barred from the highest level of "government."This is not democracy; it is a gerontocracy—a rule of the old over the young. To tell 73% of the population that they possess the wisdom to choose who leads them, but lack the wisdom to lead themselves, is a profound disenfranchisement. True representation demands that the demographic composition of our leadership reflects the demographic reality of the populace. A government ofthe people must look likethe people.

Historical Precedence: The African Revolutionary Spirit

We need not look only to the West for examples; our own continents history is replete with young giants who shouldered the burden of nationhood. We must reject the colonial and neocolonial narrative that equates youth with inexperience and look to the icons of African liberation. Thomas Sankara, the visionary leader of Burkina Faso, became President at the age of 33, but his revolutionary leadership and ideological clarity were forged in his 20s. He transformed his nation in four years more than many "mature"leaders did in forty. We remember Patrice Lumumba, who became the Prime Minister of the Congo at 35, leading his nation to independence with a fire and intellect that terrified colonial powers. We look to Muammar Gaddafi, who assumed leadership of Libya at the tender age of 27, driving massive infrastructural and economic changes. Even Valentine Strasser of Sierra Leone became a Head of State at 25. In our traditional settings, age has never been an absolute barrier; we have a rich history of Kings, Queens, and Emperors ascending to stools and skins in their youth, guided by councilors but leading with vigor. If our ancestors trusted the youth with the sacred stools, we can trust them with the presidency.

The Biblical Mandate: Divine Trust in Youth

Finally, we set the record straight by referencing the ultimate authority for many in our nation—the biblical archives. History clearly shows that when Divinity sought to transform nations, It often turned to the young. David was but a teenager, likely under 20, when he defeated Goliath and was anointed King, possessing the character requisite for leadership long before he possessed the grey hairs. Solomon ascended to the throne in his early 20s, and his reign is synonymous with wisdom—not because he was old, but because he knew how to seek counsel. Josiah became King at the age of 8 and led the greatest religious reformation in the history of Judah. We see Joseph, who was a Governor in Egypt effectively running the world's superpower economy at age 30, a position he was prepared for through the trials of his 20s. These figures performed incredibly well, proving that the spirit of leadership is not bound by time.

Conclusion

The reduction of the presidential age to 30 is a step, but it is a timid one. To align with the science of the brain, the realities of modern corporate competence, the logic of our own constitution, the demographics of our population, and the history of our heroes, we must be decisive. We must lower the age to 18 or 21. The youth are not waiting to become leaders of tomorrow; they are building the world of today.

By Christopher Wisdom Penu – Leadership Coach, Pan Africanist, Founding President of RAGeT-AFRICA, and National Coordinator of the Ghana Youth Manifesto Coalition.