NPP petitions Supreme Court to rule on Mahama’s eligibility for another term in 2028

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to determine whether Ghana’s constitutional two-term limit for presidents applies to consecutive and non-consecutive terms, a case with potential implications for President John Dramani Mahama’s eligibility to contest the 2028 elections.

In a writ filed against the Attorney-General, the opposition party is seeking an interpretation of relevant provisions of the 1992 Constitution to establish that a person cannot be elected president more than twice or serve more than two four-year terms, irrespective of whether the terms follow one another.

The action, brought under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution, argues that the term limit must be understood cumulatively and cannot be reset by a president’s failure to secure immediate re-election.

The NPP is seeking a declaration that “‘two terms’ stipulated as the limit on the terms a person may hold office as President of Ghana refers to and means a maximum of two terms whether served by a person consecutively or non-consecutively.”

The party argues that a person who has served one presidential term remains eligible for only one additional term, even if another person occupies the presidency between the two terms.

It contends that losing an immediate re-election bid does not erase a term already served or create an opportunity for a former president to return and serve additional terms beyond the constitutional limit.

The NPP is also asking the court to declare that a person cannot be elected president more than twice and cannot hold the office for more than eight years in total, whether the terms are consecutive or non-consecutive.

Another relief sought concerns a vice-president who assumes the presidency for more than half of a predecessor’s unexpired term.

The party wants the court to declare that such a person would be eligible to contest for only one additional presidential term.

The writ further asks the court to clarify that a person who has previously served one presidential term may serve for only one more term, regardless of whether the two terms are separated by the tenure of another president.

In its statement of case, the NPP argues that interpreting the constitutional limit as applying only to consecutive terms would effectively introduce wording that does not appear in the Constitution.

The party describes that interpretation as constitutionally impermissible, arguing that it could allow a person to accumulate three or more presidential terms.

It states that allowing such an interpretation would amount to changing the Constitution through judicial interpretation rather than through the prescribed constitutional amendment process.

The NPP is asking the Supreme Court to grant the declarations sought and make any further orders it considers appropriate.