Two run to Supreme Court to clarify presidential two-term limit

Two separate suits have been filed at the Supreme Court seeking a constitutional interpretation of Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides that no person shall be elected to serve as President of Ghana for more than two terms.

The cases, brought independently by Ganiwu Alhassan, a teacher from Kpandai in the Northern Region, and Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie, Editor of the Daily Searchlight newspaper, ask the apex court to determine whether the constitutional provision prohibits only two consecutive presidential terms or permanently disqualifies anyone who has already served two terms, regardless of whether they were consecutive.

In his suit, Mr Alhassan is asking the Supreme Court to declare that a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms as President remains eligible to contest the presidency again.

He argues that preventing such an individual from seeking re-election would be inconsistent with the Constitution. According to him, the provisions governing a Vice-President who assumes the presidency under Articles 60(6) and 60(7) demonstrate that the two-term limit was not intended to operate as an absolute prohibition in every circumstance.

In a separate action, Mr Kuranchie is seeking three constitutional declarations relating to the same provision.

He wants the Supreme Court to rule that Article 66(2) bars only a person who has completed two consecutive four-year presidential terms from contesting another election.

Mr Kuranchie further argues that a break of at least one full four-year electoral cycle effectively resets a former President's eligibility, contending that the constitutional limitation applies only after an individual has been elected to and served two successive four-year terms.

This is not Mr Kuranchie's first legal challenge on the issue.

Ahead of the 2024 general election, he filed a similar suit seeking to prevent then former President John Dramani Mahama from contesting the presidency.

However, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, chaired by then Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo, struck out the case after ruling that the writ was procedurally defective because Mr Kuranchie failed to file a statement of case within the period prescribed by the court's rules.

The court held that the manner in which the action was initiated did not properly invoke its jurisdiction.

The Attorney-General, who has been named as the defendant in both suits, has 14 days from the date of service to file statements of defence in response to the constitutional challenges.