'Do not raise constitutional issues where none exists’ – Dafeamekpor on NPP's presidential term suit 

The Majority Chief Whip in Parliament and Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, has questioned the legal basis of the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) fresh suit at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of the constitutional two-term limit for presidents.

The opposition party has invoked the court’s original jurisdiction to determine whether the limit applies to consecutive and non-consecutive presidential terms, a case with potential implications for President John Dramani Mahama’s eligibility to contest the 2028 elections.

The NPP’s suit asks the Supreme Court to declare that the constitutional provision limiting a person to two presidential terms means a maximum of two terms, whether served consecutively or non-consecutively.

The party is also seeking declarations that no person may be elected president more than twice or serve more than eight years in total, regardless of whether the terms are separated by another president’s tenure.

Reacting to this in a social media post on Wednesday, October 28, Dafeamekpor cited previous Supreme Court decisions to argue that constitutional provisions expressed in clear and unambiguous language do not require judicial interpretation.

“Unless the words of an article of the Constitution are imprecise and ambiguous, an issue of interpretation does not arise,” he quoted from the Supreme Court’s decision in Tait v Ghana Airways, 2 GLR 527.

The South Dayi MP also referred to previous decisions, including "Bimpong-Buta v GLC, Mark Assibey-Yeboah v ECG and Attorney-General and Ex Parte Dr Zanetor A. Rawlings," to support his position that litigants should not frame matters as constitutional interpretation cases when the relevant provisions are clear.

He argued that the Supreme Court had previously cautioned against bringing cases that do not raise genuine constitutional interpretation issues, noting that the court had indicated that punitive costs could be imposed in such circumstances.

Mr Dafeamekpor further cited "Edusei v Attorney-General [1996–97] SCGLR 1", in which Justice Acquah cautioned lawyers against raising constitutional issues where none existed.

“Lawyers should not be astute to raise constitutional issues where none arises merely to waste the time of the Court,” he quoted from the ruling.

Buttressing his point, the MP invoked the Latin maxim ex nihilo, nihil fit, meaning “out of nothing, nothing comes”, before adding: “King Lear was right.”