Renowned legal scholar and democracy advocate Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has questioned whether the Supreme Court has the constitutional basis to entertain two writs seeking an interpretation of Article 66(2) regarding presidential term limits.
His comments come after separate suits filed by Alhassan and Ken Kuranchie asking the apex court to determine whether President John Dramani Mahama is constitutionally eligible to contest for a third presidential term.
According to Prof. Asare, the applications fail to present an actual constitutional dispute required to trigger the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
He argued that the Court’s constitutional mandate is to adjudicate real controversies rather than provide advisory opinions on hypothetical situations.
“The Supreme Court decides constitutional disputes; it does not give legal advice on hypothetical facts,” he stated.
Prof. Asare noted that there is currently no constitutional conflict before the Court because no presidential nomination has been submitted, accepted or rejected by the Electoral Commission, nor has any public official acted contrary to Article 66(2).
He further pointed out that President Mahama has publicly indicated that he has no intention of seeking a third term, making the legal questions raised by the plaintiffs speculative.
According to him, the writs merely seek the Court’s opinion on how Article 66(2) should be interpreted should certain events occur in the future.
“What we have instead are invitations for the Court to pronounce on what Article 66(2) would mean if certain events were ever to occur,” he said.
Prof. Asare maintained that such legal and constitutional discussions are appropriate for academic discourse and public debate rather than judicial determination in the absence of an actual dispute.
“Those are subjects for classroom debates, television panels and social media banter. They are not, without more, constitutional controversies. The Supreme Court cannot indulge in that,” he argued.
He stressed that before addressing the substantive constitutional issues raised in the writs, the Supreme Court should first determine whether the cases disclose a justiciable constitutional controversy capable of invoking its original jurisdiction.
“The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is one of constitutional adjudication, not constitutional consultancy,” Prof. Asare added.
