By Ashiadey Dotse
The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has filed a suit at the Supreme Court seeking clarification on whether President John Dramani Mahama can contest the 2028 presidential election after previously serving two terms in office.
The NPP is seeking declarations on the meaning of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the Constitution. The party is asking the court to interpret the presidential term limit provisions of the 1992 Constitution to determine whether the two-term limit applies to solely consecutive terms or applies to non-consecutive terms as well.
Essentially, among other reliefs, the party wants the Supreme Court to declare that a person can be elected President only twice, regardless of whether the terms are served consecutively or are separated by a period out of office. It is asking the court to affirm that a person cannot hold the office of President for more than two four-year terms, amounting to a maximum of eight years
The writ of summons and statement of case were filed by the party’s solicitor, Godfred Yeboah Dame of Dame & Partners. The Attorney-General has been named as the defendant.
The party is also seeking clarification on the eligibility of a Vice-President who assumes the presidency for more than half of the remaining term of a predecessor.
It wants the court to declare that such a person would be eligible to contest for only one additional presidential term.
The NPP is further asking the court to determine whether a person who has previously served one presidential term can serve only one more term, regardless of whether the two terms are consecutive.
NPP Warns Against Interpretation of Two-Term Limit
The suit comes amid public debate over whether the constitutional phrase “two terms” means two consecutive terms or a maximum of two terms in total.
The NPP argues that interpreting the provision to mean two consecutive terms could allow a former President who has served one term, lost an attempt at immediate re-election and later returned to office to serve two additional terms.
According to the party, such an interpretation would undermine the constitutional framework governing presidential tenure.
“Plaintiff considers this proposition not only absurd but dangerous for the democracy, peace and stability of the nation,” the statement of case reads.
The party argues that adopting the interpretation would amount to adding words to the Constitution that are not contained in its provisions.
It maintains that allowing such an interpretation would effectively result in an amendment of the Constitution through a court ruling rather than through the proper constitutional process.
In support of its arguments, the party refers to international examples, including the 22nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, which limits the number of times a person can be elected President.
The NPP also cites constitutional developments in other African countries, arguing that attempts to change presidential term limits have contributed to political instability in some jurisdictions.
The party further relies on the 2011 report of the Constitution Review Commission, which recommended an amendment to clarify that a person who has served two presidential terms would not qualify to contest for re-election.
The Supreme Court is expected to determine the meaning and application of the relevant constitutional provisions, a decision that could have significant implications for Ghana’s presidential term limits and the 2028 elections.
It is not clear if a decision, however the court decides, will have any implication for the constitutional review proposal for a two 5 year term limit for a President
