‘The Constitution Is Clear’ — Fuseini Challenges NPP’s Supreme Court Suit on Presidential Terms

Former Tamale Central Member of Parliament Inusah Fuseini has questioned the necessity of the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) suit at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of constitutional provisions on presidential term limits, arguing that the 1992 Constitution is unequivocal in restricting any individual to two terms as President.

According to him, Article 66(2) leaves little room for ambiguity, as it clearly states that a person cannot be elected to the office of President more than twice, regardless of whether the terms are consecutive or non-consecutive.

Speaking on The Big Issue on Channel One TV on Saturday, October 31, 2026, Mr Fuseini maintained that the constitutional provision focuses on the number of times a person is elected President, not on whether there is a break between periods in office.

“I think that the emphasis should actually be put on election, not the person,” he said.

He argued that the framers of the Constitution deliberately imposed term limits on the presidency while allowing Members of Parliament to seek re-election without restriction.

Drawing on his own political experience, Mr Fuseini noted that he had served more than four terms in Parliament because the Constitution does not impose term limits on legislators.

He explained that Article 66(1) provides for a four-year presidential term, while Article 66(2) expressly states that a person “shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms.”

“The Constitution is very clear. The drafters were very clear. They knew what they wanted. They wanted to impose term limits,” he said.

Mr Fuseini insisted that the provision does not need to distinguish between consecutive and non-consecutive terms because the restriction applies to the number of times an individual can be elected President.

Beyond his interpretation of the law, he questioned the basis of the NPP’s decision to invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that no person has attempted to contest for a third presidential term under the disputed provisions.

“The Supreme Court has no speculative jurisdiction. It can’t speculate what anybody will do,” he stated.

He further questioned why the court should be invited to rule on a constitutional issue that has not arisen in practice, warning that such proceedings risk becoming an unnecessary drain on public resources.

The NPP has filed a suit against the Attorney-General seeking an interpretation of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2), and (3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.

The party wants the Supreme Court to declare that no individual can be elected President more than twice or occupy the office for more than eight years, regardless of whether the two terms are served consecutively or separated by a period out of office.