The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has turned to the Supreme Court to settle a constitutional question over whether a person who has served one presidential term can return to office for two additional terms after spending a period out of power.
The case, filed on July 28, 2026, seeks an authoritative interpretation of the 1992 Constitution’s provisions on presidential tenure and could have implications for President John Dramani Mahama’s eligibility to contest the 2028 presidential election.
In its writ of summons and statement of case, the opposition party is asking the court to determine whether the constitutional limit of two presidential terms applies to a person’s total time in office, irrespective of whether the terms are consecutive or separated by a break.
The suit was filed by the party’s solicitor, Godfred Yeboah Dame of Dame & Partners, with the Attorney-General named as the defendant.
The NPP is seeking declarations on Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the Constitution, including a ruling that no individual may be elected President more than twice or occupy the office for more than two four-year terms, amounting to eight years.
The party is also asking the court to clarify the constitutional position of a Vice-President who assumes the presidency for more than half of a predecessor’s unexpired term, arguing that such a person should be eligible to contest for only one presidential term.
Another question the NPP wants resolved is whether someone who has already served one presidential term can be elected for only one further term, regardless of whether the two periods in office are consecutive.
The party’s action follows public debate over whether the constitutional reference to “two terms” could be interpreted as permitting two consecutive terms rather than two terms in total.
According to the NPP, that interpretation could allow a former President who has served one term, failed to secure immediate re-election and subsequently returned to office to serve two more terms.
The party argues that such a reading would undermine the constitutional framework intended to limit 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.
It further contends that interpreting the Constitution to permit additional terms in such circumstances would amount to inserting words into the constitutional text and effectively changing its meaning through a judicial decision.
“Acceding to this interpretation will condone and sanction manipulation of clear provisions in the Constitution as it involves inserting words into the constitutional text—it will involve amending the Constitution through judicial fiat,” the party states.
To support its position, the NPP cites international examples, including the United States’ 22nd Amendment, which limits the number of times a person may be elected President.
It also refers to constitutional developments in other African countries, arguing that attempts to alter presidential term limits have contributed to political instability in some jurisdictions.
The party’s submissions further draw 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 stand for re-election.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions is being sought to settle the dispute over how presidential term limits should apply when a person’s periods in office are separated by time out of power.
