Interpreting two presidential term limit as consecutive terms amounts to Constitutional rewrite - Gabby

Ghanaian legal expert and political commentator Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko has criticised a legal action seeking a Supreme Court interpretation of Ghana's two-term presidential limit.

The criticism follows a writ filed at the Supreme Court by Ghanaian news editor and lawyer Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie, popularly known as Ken Kuranchie, seeking a definitive interpretation of the constitutional provision on presidential term limits.

The suit, filed on June 30, was brought by Ken Kuranchie and has the Attorney-General, Dominic Ayine, as the sole defendant.

Citing Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, the plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to interpret whether that provision applies only to two consecutive terms and whether a break between elected terms resets a person's eligibility count.

"A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35(1), and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, the two-term presidential limit in Article 66(2) is properly construed as imposing a prohibition on election to the office of President of Ghana only upon the completion of two consecutive terms of four years each," the writ stated in part.

"A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35(1), and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, a substantial break of one four-year electoral cycle of elected presidential service resets the eligibility count," the writ added.

Reacting in a social media post on Friday, July 10, Otchere-Darko argued that accepting such an interpretation would fundamentally alter the Constitution rather than clarify it.

“That is not interpreting the Constitution. It is rewriting it,” he stated.

According to him, Article 66(2) is explicit that a President cannot hold office for more than two terms and does not limit the restriction to consecutive terms.

“The Constitution says a President shall not hold office for more than two terms. It does not say two consecutive terms. Had the framers intended that qualification, they knew exactly how to say so. They didn’t,” Otchere-Darko wrote.

He further contended that asking the Supreme Court to read the word "consecutive" into the Constitution amounts to a constitutional amendment by judicial decision rather than constitutional interpretation.