NPP runs to Supreme Court to clarify presidential two-term limit

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has petitioned the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutional provisions governing the presidential term limit, particularly whether the restriction of two terms applies to both consecutive and non-consecutive periods in office.

The case seeks to settle an ongoing public debate over whether a person who has already served two presidential terms at different periods can contest again for the presidency in 2028.

The writ of summons and statement of case, dated July 28, 2026, were filed on behalf of the NPP by its solicitor, Godfred Yeboah Dame of Dame & Partners. The Attorney-General has been named as the defendant.

At the centre of the case is the interpretation of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.

The NPP is asking the court to determine whether the constitutional reference to a President serving “two terms” means a maximum of two four-year terms in total, irrespective of whether those terms are served consecutively or separated by a period out of office.

Among the declarations being sought, the party wants the Supreme Court to affirm that no person may be elected President more than twice or occupy the presidency for more than two four-year terms, amounting to eight years in total.

The party is also seeking clarification on the eligibility of a Vice-President who assumes the presidency and serves for more than half of the remaining term of a predecessor.

According to the NPP, a person who assumes the presidency under such circumstances should be eligible to contest for the office for only one further term.

The party is further asking the court to determine whether a person who has previously served one presidential term can contest and serve only one additional term, regardless of whether the two periods in office are consecutive.

The suit comes against the backdrop of arguments that the constitutional provision could be interpreted as permitting two consecutive terms rather than two terms in total.

The NPP contends that such an interpretation could create a situation where a person who has served one term, failed to win immediate re-election and subsequently returned to office could potentially serve two additional terms.

It describes that possibility as inconsistent with the constitutional framework on presidential tenure.

“Plaintiff considers this proposition not only absurd but dangerous for the democracy, peace and stability of the nation,” the party stated in its case.

The NPP argues that interpreting the Constitution to mean two consecutive terms would require words that are not contained in the constitutional text to be inserted into it.

“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 argued.

The party has also referred to international constitutional practice in support of its position, including the United States' 22nd Amendment, which places a limit on the number of times an individual can be elected President.

It further cited constitutional developments in other African countries, arguing that attempts to extend or alter presidential term limits have contributed to political instability in some jurisdictions.

The NPP also relied on the 2011 report of Ghana's Constitution Review Commission, which recommended an amendment to make it clear that a person who has served two terms as President would not be eligible to seek re-election.

The party is therefore asking the Supreme Court to provide an authoritative interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions and settle the question of whether the two-term presidential limit applies cumulatively or only to consecutive periods in office.