When former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo quietly resigned from Ghana’s Council of State, the public only learned of her departure months later—first through media reports and then through confirmation by presidential spokesperson Felix Kwakye Ofosu. That silence is not a minor administrative oversight. It raises a fundamental question of democratic accountability: why was an appointment to the Council publicly announced, while a resignation from this constitutional body—funded by taxpayers and entrusted with advising the President—treated as a private exchange between a member and President Mahama?The issue is not whether Justice Akuffo had the right to resign; she did. It is whether citizens should be informed when a vacancy arises in a body whose very purpose is to provide the President with the full complement of advice and expertise envisaged by Article 89 of the Constitution. Without disclosure, the public cannot know whether an important constitutional institution is operating with vacancies or whether delays in replacing members are diminishing the diversity of advice available to the President. The subsequent disclosure that government is only now taking steps to replace Justice Akuffo several months after her resignation demonstrates that these concerns are not merely hypothetical.A Constitutional Blind SpotThe Council of State has deep roots in Ghana’s constitutional history. The Coussey Committee of 1949 considered proposals for a second chamber composed of chiefs and eminent citizens. Though rejected on grounds of cost, the idea resurfaced in 1955 and later took shape in the 1969 Constitution of the Second Republic, which under Article 53(1) established a Council to advise the President. The institution was retained in the 1979 Constitution (Article 106(1)) and finally entrenched in the 1992 Constitution under Article 89(1), which created the current 31- member Council composed of presidential appointees, elected regional representatives, traditional leaders, and former senior public officials.Across these constitutions, one principle has remained constant: executive authority is strengthened when informed by the counsel of respected figures.Yet one blind spot persists. Under the Council of State Act, 2020 (Act 1037), resignations need only be communicated to the President. There is no obligation of public disclosure. This asymmetry—appointments in public, resignations in silence—undermines transparency and weakens trust in an institution meant to embody collective wisdom.Confidentiality of deliberations is essential, but transparency in composition is equally important. When high-profile members resign without timely disclosure, citizens are deprived of important context about changes within a key constitutional institution. Over time, such silence risks normalising opacity around constitutional transitions and weakening public confidence in Ghana’s constitutional democracy.Comparative Lessons: Nigeria, South Africa and KenyaGhana is not alone. Nigeria’s National Council of State, established under Section 153 and Part I of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, operates under similar opacity. Membership changes are not subject to strict disclosure, reflecting a broader culture of silence around advisory bodies.South Africa, however, demonstrates that transparency is a governance choice. Its Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC), though not constitutionally established, benefits from consistent public communication on appointments and changes in membership. This ensures that citizens know who advises the President, strengthening institutional legitimacy without compromising confidentiality. Reports submitted to the Presidency are also made public after a period of time, reflecting a balance between sensitivity and accountability.Kenya offers a cautionary lesson. The National Economic and Social Council, once an influential advisory body, lost much of its prominence and effectiveness before recent efforts by President William Ruto to revive and restructure it. Its experience underscores a broader point: advisory institutions must remain visible, functional and responsive if they are to retain relevance and public trust.These comparative experiences show that transparency practices are shaped less by constitutional design than by governance culture. Institutions that embrace openness tend to enjoy greater legitimacy and public confidence.Why Composition MattersTransparency is not an abstract virtue; it has practical consequences. Consider recent events: petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo were referred to the Council of State while former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo served on the Council and chaired its Legal,Constitutional Affairs and Petitions Committee. Her committee participated in the constitutional process that culminated in the Council’s advice to President Mahama regarding the existence of a prima facie case. The President subsequently established a committee of inquiry under Article 146(6) of the Constitution, and that committee eventually recommended the Chief Justice’s removal from office.The episode illustrates that the Council of State is not a ceremonial body. It is periodically called upon to advise the President on matters of enormous constitutional significance.To be sure, the Constitution does not require every vacancy to be filled before the Council can continue functioning, and government may reasonably argue that there is no legal obligation to publicly announce resignations. Yet democratic accountability often requires more than mere compliance with minimum legal requirements. A prolonged vacancy may diminish the diversity of expertise and perspectives available to the President and leave citizens uncertain about whether a constitutional institution is operating at full strength.Silence about resignations obscures not only vacancies but also delays in filling them. The prolonged gap after Justice Akuffo’s resignation illustrates precisely why disclosure matters.The Case for ReformReform is overdue. The Constitution Review Committee (CRC), chaired by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, has already called for changes to strengthen transparency and accountability. With nearly half of its membership unelected, its deliberations conducted in private, and limited avenues for public engagement, the Council must work harder to sustain democratic legitimacy.Greater transparency in membership changes would be an important step in that direction. At the minimum, the Constitution or Council of State Act, 2020 (Act 1037) should be amended to require prompt public notification whenever a member resigns, passes away, or ceases to hold office.Beyond legislation, the Presidency could adopt a standing practice: issue immediate public statements on membership changes and establish an online register that tracks appointments and resignations in real time. These steps would align Ghana with democratic norms where institutional visibility is central to public trust.Transparency should also be linked to institutional continuity. Public notification of resignations should be accompanied by a commitment to fill vacancies within a reasonable period so that the Council can continue to discharge its functions with its full complement of expertise and institutional memory. The prolonged delay in replacing Justice Akuffo demonstrates that the absence of public disclosure can also obscure delays in reconstituting the membership of an important constitutional body. A constitutional advisory institution is most effective when it is transparent in its composition and complete in its membership.ConclusionThe Council of State reflects Ghana’s enduring belief that executive power should be guided by collective wisdom. But constitutional legitimacy depends not only on legal design but also on public trust, and public trust requires both transparency and institutional effectiveness.The quiet resignation of Justice Akuffo has exposed a broader gap in Ghana’s constitutional practice. If appointments to constitutional bodies are matters of public interest, then their resignations should be treated with the same level of openness. Citizens have a legitimate interest not only in knowing when the composition of constitutional institutions changes, but also in knowing whether vacancies are being filled promptly so that those institutions can continue to perform their constitutional functions effectively.Public disclosure and timely replacement of members would strengthen accountability, sustain confidence in constitutional institutions, and help ensure that the Council of State remains fit for purpose in Ghana’s constitutional democracy.The author, William Nyarko, is the Executive Director of the Africa Centre for International Law and Accountability (ACILA)