Supreme Court nominee Justice Senyo Dzamefe has reiterated his unshakable respect for the two-term limit for Ghanaian presidents, a stance that has gained significance amid rising political controversy surrounding claims of a potential third-term agenda by the current administration.
During his vetting before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Monday, June 16, 2025, Justice Dzamefe responded pointedly when asked about Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which restricts any individual from holding the presidency for more than two terms.
Suame MP John Darko posed the question, suggesting a possible reinterpretation of the clause. Justice Dzamefe, however, was unequivocal: “Mr. Chairman, the honourable member referred to the constitution, and that is what the constitution says. So I can’t have anything against what is in the constitution.”
His clear position arrives as the country grapples with allegations by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who recently accused President John Dramani Mahama and the NDC of laying the groundwork for a constitutionally controversial third term. Afenyo-Markin claimed that the recent nomination of seven judges to the Supreme Court was a strategic move to tilt judicial sympathies.
“It is obvious that the bold attempts by the president to nominate out of the blue, seven judges, to the Supreme Court are the first major attempt at all that they have rehearsed; a third-term agenda,” Afenyo-Markin charged during a media interaction on May 1, 2025.
President Mahama, who previously served two terms (2012–2016 and 2016–2020), has defended his appointments as a response to the increasing workload and complexity of constitutional cases facing the apex court—not as a political maneuver.
Article 66(2) of the Constitution, the heart of the ongoing debate, states: “A person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms.”
Observers say Justice Dzamefe’s firm adherence to constitutional clarity could help calm public anxiety over the third-term allegations, even as the political debate intensifies ahead of the 2028 elections. His response has been seen as a reaffirmation of judicial independence at a time when trust in state institutions is increasingly under scrutiny.
