When the Constitution Speaks—Reflections on Constitutional Interpretation and Presidential Term Limits

"A Constitution does not speak in order to win an argument. It speaks in order to preserve a Republic." — Seth K. Awuku

"We must never forget, in Marshall's mighty phrase, that it is a Constitution we are expounding." — Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921)

Author's Note
This essay contributes to the ongoing discourse on constitutional interpretation, constitutionalism and democratic governance in Ghana. It does not seek to prejudge or comment upon any matter presently pending before the Supreme Court. Rather, it reflects upon the principles that should guide constitutional interpretation in every constitutional democracy committed to the rule of law. The discussion that follows is concerned not with the outcome of any particular case, but with the methodology by which constitutional meaning ought to be discovered.

The Constitution Before the Controversy

Every generation inherits a Constitution. None inherits the right to rewrite it for the convenience of the moment.

Between those two truths lies one of the most solemn responsibilities entrusted to constitutional democracy: the interpretation of the Constitution.

What, then, is a Constitution? Is it merely a legal instrument establishing the institutions of government, or is it something more enduring—a covenant through which one generation entrusts the principles of democratic government to the next?

These questions assume particular importance whenever constitutional provisions are invoked to resolve issues of profound public significance. At such moments, constitutional interpretation ceases to be an abstract academic exercise. It becomes an affirmation of the Republic's deepest commitments to the rule of law, constitutional government and democratic continuity.

The 1992 Constitution of Ghana is not an ordinary statute. It is the supreme law of the Republic. It establishes the institutions of government, distributes public authority, protects fundamental rights and freedoms, and defines the constitutional limits within which political power may be exercised. Its interpretation therefore requires a methodology commensurate with its unique constitutional status.

Ordinary legislation regulates particular aspects of public life. A constitution performs a fundamentally different function. It provides the legal and institutional framework within which every other law derives its authority and legitimacy. For that reason, constitutional provisions cannot be interpreted as though they were isolated statutory clauses. They must instead be understood as parts of a coherent constitutional order whose provisions illuminate one another.

This understanding was eloquently expressed by Benjamin N. Cardozo when he reminded judges that, in Marshall's memorable phrase, they are not merely expounding legislation but "a Constitution." A constitution is intended to endure. It must therefore be interpreted in a manner that preserves both its authority and its capacity to govern changing circumstances without sacrificing the constitutional principles upon which the Republic is founded.

The current public discussion surrounding presidential term limits presents an opportunity to reflect upon a larger constitutional question. The enduring issue is not simply what a particular constitutional provision means. It is how constitutional meaning ought to be discovered.

Constitutional controversies inevitably pass. The principles by which constitutions are interpreted endure. Long after individual disputes have been resolved, the interpretive methodologies adopted by constitutional courts continue to shape the constitutional life of the Republic.

It is for that reason that constitutional interpretation deserves careful reflection. A Constitution does not speak through isolated words alone. It speaks through its text, its structure, its history, its purposes and the enduring constitutional values that give coherence to the Republic it governs.

A Constitutional Moment Beyond the Immediate Dispute

Constitutions are tested not only in times of national crisis but also in moments of constitutional uncertainty. Such moments invite a Republic to reflect upon the principles that sustain its constitutional order.

Ghana stands at one such moment.
Proceedings presently before the Supreme Court concerning Article 66 of the 1992 Constitution have naturally generated significant public interest. They raise important questions concerning presidential tenure and constitutional meaning. The Court will determine those questions in accordance with the Constitution and the law. It would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of those proceedings while they remain pending.

Yet beyond the immediate litigation lies a broader constitutional conversation that belongs to every citizen committed to constitutional democracy.

How should a constitutional provision be interpreted?

That question is more enduring than any individual dispute because constitutional controversies eventually pass, while the principles governing constitutional interpretation remain part of the Republic's constitutional inheritance. Today's litigation will become tomorrow's constitutional history. The methodology by which constitutional meaning is discovered, however, will continue to guide courts, lawyers, legislators and citizens whenever new constitutional questions arise.

The present constitutional moment therefore offers an opportunity to reflect—not upon the answer to a particular case—but upon the discipline of constitutional interpretation itself.

Reasonable people may disagree about the outcome of constitutional litigation. They should nevertheless be able to agree that constitutional adjudication must be principled, disciplined and faithful to the Constitution. The legitimacy of constitutional interpretation ultimately depends not upon the popularity of judicial conclusions but upon the integrity of the reasoning by which those conclusions are reached.

The first duty of constitutional interpretation is therefore methodological before it is substantive. Before asking what the Constitution means, we must first ask how constitutional meaning ought to be discovered.

Before Asking What Article 66 Means...
Before asking what Article 66 means, we must first ask a more fundamental question:

How should Article 66 be interpreted?
That question is not unique to Article 66. It lies at the heart of constitutional adjudication itself. Every constitutional controversy, whether concerning presidential tenure, the separation of powers, judicial independence or fundamental rights, begins with the same judicial responsibility: to adopt a principled methodology of interpretation before reaching a constitutional conclusion.

Interpretation necessarily begins with the constitutional text. The words chosen by the framers remain the indispensable point of departure because the Constitution speaks through the language they deliberately adopted.

Yet constitutional interpretation cannot end with the words alone. Constitutional language acquires meaning through its context, its relationship with other provisions, the structure of the Constitution, the purposes the provision serves and the constitutional order it was designed to preserve.

The modern approach to constitutional interpretation therefore rejects the search for meaning through any single interpretive lens. Neither literal meaning alone nor purpose alone is sufficient. Constitutional understanding emerges from a disciplined engagement with text, context, structure, purpose and constitutional coherence.

The interpreter's task is not to choose between text and purpose, but to understand how each illuminates the other within the constitutional order. Constitutional interpretation thus becomes an exercise in disciplined constitutional reasoning rather than linguistic analysis alone.

This understanding reflects an important constitutional truth. The Constitution is not a collection of disconnected provisions. It is an integrated legal order whose individual parts derive meaning from their relationship with the whole. A constitutional provision is therefore best understood not in isolation but within the broader constitutional framework of which it forms part.

This holistic understanding is not merely a matter of interpretive preference. It has long been reflected in Ghanaian constitutional jurisprudence. In landmark decisions such as Tuffuor v. Attorney-General and the 31st December Case, the Supreme Court emphasised that the Constitution must be read as an integrated whole, with its provisions interpreted harmoniously in light of the broader constitutional order they establish. That jurisprudence underscores a simple but enduring principle: constitutional meaning is illuminated not by isolated provisions, but by the Constitution viewed in its entirety.

For that reason, the question before every constitutional interpreter is never simply, "What do these words say?" It is also, "How do these words serve the Constitution as a whole?"

Only by asking both questions together can constitutional interpretation remain faithful to the Republic's enduring constitutional design.

An Integrated Methodology of Constitutional Interpretation

If constitutional interpretation begins with the Constitution as an integrated whole, the next question is methodological: how should constitutional meaning be discovered?

Modern constitutional interpretation proceeds from a simple but profound insight. Constitutional meaning rarely resides in isolated words or phrases. Rather, it emerges from the disciplined interaction of the constitutional text, its context, its structure, its purpose and the broader constitutional order of which it forms part.

This understanding has found expression in both Ghanaian and comparative scholarship. Although developed within different legal traditions, both converge upon a common methodological principle: constitutional interpretation is an integrated exercise rather than the application of a single interpretive rule.

Contemporary Ghanaian scholarship reflects this integrated methodology with particular clarity. Justice Dennis Dominic Adjei, now a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana, observes in Modern Approach to the Law of Interpretation in Ghana (3rd ed., reprinted 2021):

"It is important to note that interpretation should take account of the words according to their ordinary meaning as well as the context in which the words are used together with the scope, purpose and the background of the legislation or the written instrument."

This observation is significant not merely because it identifies several interpretive considerations, but because it demonstrates that none is sufficient in isolation. Ordinary meaning remains indispensable. Yet words derive their legal significance from the context in which they appear, the purpose they are intended to serve, the legislative or constitutional background against which they were enacted, and the broader legal framework within which they operate.

Justice Adjei's methodology therefore rejects interpretive reductionism. It neither confines interpretation to literal meaning nor permits purpose to eclipse the constitutional text. Instead, it calls upon the interpreter to engage each interpretive consideration as part of a coherent and integrated exercise directed towards discovering legal meaning.

Comparable interpretive insights are found in the work of the distinguished Canadian scholar Ruth Sullivan, whose writings have profoundly influenced modern approaches to statutory interpretation throughout the common law world. Sullivan's contribution extends beyond purposive interpretation in its narrow sense. Her methodology is fundamentally holistic. She argues that legal texts must be read in their entire context, having regard to the scheme of the enactment, its object and the intention reflected in the legislation as a whole. Meaning emerges not from one interpretive factor alone but from the disciplined interaction of all of them.

Although Justice Adjei and Sullivan write from different legal traditions, their methodologies converge upon an important jurisprudential insight. Sound interpretation is neither mechanical nor intuitive. It is disciplined. The interpreter's responsibility is not to elevate one interpretive principle above all others, but to understand how text, context, structure, purpose and legal coherence illuminate one another in the search for constitutional meaning.

For constitutional interpretation in Ghana, that convergence is particularly instructive. The Constitution is not merely another legal instrument. It is the supreme law of the Republic, establishing a comprehensive constitutional order. Its provisions therefore derive meaning not simply from their individual wording but from their place within that constitutional order and the democratic principles the Constitution was designed to secure.

The constitutional interpreter's question is therefore never simply, "What does this provision say?" It is the more searching question, "What meaning emerges when this provision is read faithfully within the text, structure, history and purposes of the Constitution as a whole?"

It is this integrated methodology that best preserves both constitutional certainty and constitutional legitimacy. It respects the constitutional text without imprisoning interpretation within isolated words. It honours constitutional purpose without allowing purpose to become a substitute for constitutional language. Above all, it recognises that constitutional meaning is discovered through disciplined constitutional reasoning rather than through personal preference or political expediency.

Constitutional Self-Confidence
A mature constitutional democracy approaches constitutional interpretation with confidence in its own constitutional tradition.

That confidence does not require isolation from comparative scholarship. Nor does it require the uncritical adoption of foreign jurisprudence. Rather, it requires the intellectual assurance to begin with one's own Constitution, one's own constitutional history and one's own jurisprudence before engaging the experience of other constitutional democracies.

Comparative scholarship is most valuable when it illuminates rather than displaces domestic constitutional meaning. Ghana's constitutional tradition is therefore enriched, not diminished, by engaging the interpretive insights of scholars such as Ruth Sullivan, provided those insights remain anchored in the text, structure and values of the 1992 Constitution.

A confident Republic does not borrow its constitutional identity. It brings its own Constitution into conversation with the wisdom of the wider constitutional community. In that conversation, the Constitution of Ghana remains the governing authority. Comparative scholarship contributes not constitutional answers but interpretive discipline.

Constitutional interpretation therefore requires two complementary virtues. It demands humility before one's own Constitution and self-confidence in engaging the constitutional experience of others. Without humility, interpretation risks becoming an exercise in personal preference. Without self-confidence, constitutional identity is surrendered to comparative influence. The task of constitutional interpretation is to avoid both extremes.

For Ghana, this is more than an interpretive preference. It is an affirmation that the 1992 Constitution possesses both the authority and the resources to answer the constitutional questions that arise under it. Comparative scholarship may illuminate the path, but it is the Constitution of Ghana that ultimately provides the destination.

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Fidelity

If constitutional interpretation requires an integrated methodology, the next question is institutional: who bears the constitutional responsibility of applying it?

Within Ghana's constitutional order, that responsibility rests principally with the Supreme Court.

The Court occupies a unique constitutional position. It is not merely the Republic's final appellate tribunal; it is the guardian of the Constitution. Entrusted with the exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Constitution, the Supreme Court bears the solemn responsibility of preserving its authority, maintaining its coherence and ensuring that every exercise of public power remains subject to constitutional limits.

That responsibility demands two complementary judicial virtues: independence and restraint.

Judicial independence protects the Constitution from external political influence. Judicial restraint protects it from the danger of judicial overreach. Independence ensures that courts remain free from pressure. Restraint ensures that constitutional interpretation remains faithful to the Constitution rather than to the personal preferences of those entrusted to interpret it.

Neither virtue is sufficient without the other.

A court that lacks independence cannot faithfully uphold the Constitution. A court that lacks restraint risks substituting judicial will for constitutional judgment. Constitutional legitimacy is therefore sustained by the careful balance between judicial courage and judicial discipline.

This is why methodology matters.
The discipline of constitutional interpretation reminds judges that their constitutional authority is derived from the Constitution itself. The judicial task is not to produce the most desirable political outcome, but to discover through principled legal reasoning the meaning that the Constitution is capable of bearing.

Public confidence in constitutional adjudication ultimately rests less upon whether citizens agree with a particular decision than upon whether they are persuaded that the Court has reached its conclusion through faithful constitutional reasoning.

Every constitutional judgment therefore becomes part of the Republic's constitutional memory. It does more than determine the rights and obligations of the parties before the Court. It shapes the constitutional principles by which future generations will understand the Constitution and the limits of public power.

The authority of the Supreme Court lies not merely in its power to pronounce constitutional meaning, but in the discipline with which it discovers that meaning.

Before the Constitution can answer the questions placed before the Court, the Court must first ensure that it is listening to the Constitution in the right way.

Constitutional Limits and Democratic Renewal

Every constitutional provision serves a constitutional purpose. Provisions governing presidential tenure are no exception. They are not merely technical rules regulating eligibility for public office. They embody a constitutional judgment about the relationship between democratic legitimacy and constitutional limitation.

Throughout constitutional history, republics have recognised that political power, while essential to democratic government, must remain subject to constitutional restraint. Elections confer democratic legitimacy, but constitutions establish the legal framework within which that legitimacy may be exercised. Democracy and constitutionalism are therefore not competing ideals; they are mutually reinforcing principles.

This understanding explains why constitutional democracies distinguish between popular choice and constitutional authority. The people exercise sovereignty through elections. The Constitution ensures that sovereignty is exercised within an enduring legal order that protects both liberty and democratic continuity.

The constitutional significance of presidential term limits therefore extends beyond any individual officeholder or political generation. Their deeper purpose is to affirm that public office is held in trust, not possessed as an entitlement. They embody the constitutional principle that political authority derives its legitimacy not only from electoral success but also from fidelity to constitutional limits.

Whether one ultimately agrees or disagrees with a particular interpretation of Article 66 is therefore secondary to a more enduring constitutional principle. The legitimacy of any constitutional interpretation depends upon the integrity of the interpretive process through which it is reached. Constitutional fidelity requires that constitutional meaning be discovered through disciplined legal reasoning rather than through political expediency or transient public opinion.

For that reason, constitutional interpretation must always remain larger than the controversy that gives rise to it. Individual disputes will inevitably become part of Ghana's constitutional history. The interpretive principles established in resolving them will continue to guide constitutional governance for generations yet unborn.

Constitutional adjudication is therefore an act of constitutional stewardship. Courts do more than settle disputes. They preserve the integrity of the constitutional order entrusted to their care.

For constitutions ultimately endure not because they eliminate disagreement, but because they provide every generation with a common constitutional language through which disagreement may be resolved peacefully, rationally and according to law.

The Republic's Quiet Covenant
Every constitutional generation eventually discovers that the greatest threat to a constitution is rarely open defiance. More often, it is the quiet temptation to treat constitutional limits as obstacles rather than safeguards.

A Constitution is not written merely for those who govern today. It is a solemn covenant between generations—a promise that power will remain the servant of law and never become its master.

Every generation is tempted to believe that its political circumstances are exceptional enough to justify bending constitutional limits. History teaches the opposite. Republics seldom decline because their constitutions are too rigid. They decline when temporary political necessity is allowed to eclipse enduring constitutional principle.

The discipline of constitutional interpretation exists precisely to guard against that danger. It reminds us that constitutional meaning is not fashioned by the urgency of the moment but discovered through fidelity to the Constitution itself. The Republic is best preserved when constitutional questions are answered not by political preference, but by principled constitutional reasoning.

The true strength of Ghana's constitutional democracy will never be measured by the absence of disagreement. Every mature democracy debates the meaning of its Constitution. Its strength will instead be measured by something far more enduring: whether, in moments of intense constitutional contestation, the nation chooses constitutional fidelity over political convenience, institutional restraint over partisan victory, and the rule of law over the seductions of power.

Presidents will come and go. Political parties will rise and fall. Parliamentary majorities will change with the seasons of democracy. Yet if the Republic is to endure, there must remain one institution that outlives every election, every administration and every political ambition—the Constitution itself.

For constitutions possess neither armies nor ballots. They command no treasury and seek no applause. Their authority rests upon a quieter foundation: the willingness of each generation to honour limits it did not write, to preserve principles it did not invent, and to bequeath to posterity a Republic no less free than the one it inherited.

The Constitution does not preserve itself. Its endurance depends upon citizens, legislators, advocates, judges and presidents alike accepting that constitutional authority is exercised within limits that none is free to disregard. Fidelity to those limits is not a sign of constitutional weakness. It is the source of constitutional strength.

"A Constitution does not speak in order to win an argument. It speaks in order to preserve a Republic."

In the end, the true measure of constitutional democracy is not how power is acquired, but how faithfully it remains subject to constitutional limits. That is the Constitution's enduring command. It speaks not merely to those who govern today, but to every generation entrusted with the care of the Republic.

   Comments0