Inusah Fuseini to Mahama: Reject a Third-Term Bid Even If Supreme Court Approves It

Former Tamale Central MP Inusah Fuseini has urged President John Dramani Mahama not to seek a third presidential term, even if the Supreme Court rules that the 1992 Constitution permits an individual to serve more than two terms.

He warned that attempts by African leaders to manipulate constitutional provisions to prolong their stay in office have often undermined democratic institutions and fuelled political instability across the continent.

Speaking on The Big Issue on Channel One TV on Saturday, October 31, 2026, Mr Fuseini said constitutional term limits must be respected regardless of how the Supreme Court interprets the ongoing dispute over presidential tenure.

“Even if the Supreme Court were to rule that a president can serve more than two terms, I would pray that John Dramani Mahama does not pursue that path,” he said.

His comments come amid a legal challenge filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) at the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on constitutional provisions governing presidential tenure and whether the two-term limit applies to both consecutive and non-consecutive terms.

The NPP is asking the court to determine whether an individual may serve only two four-year presidential terms in total, irrespective of whether the terms are separated by a period out of office.

Mr Fuseini maintained that the Constitution already restricts a president to two terms, arguing that Article 66(2) makes no distinction between consecutive and non-consecutive presidential mandates.

However, he stressed that his concerns extend beyond the legal interpretation of the Constitution to the broader consequences of attempts to alter constitutional arrangements for political gain.

“What has caused instability in African countries is the tinkering with the Constitution,” he said.

According to him, efforts by incumbent leaders to extend their tenure through constitutional changes often shrink democratic space and concentrate excessive power in the presidency.

He further cautioned that such moves can erode public confidence in state institutions and create perceptions that the judiciary is being influenced to deliver rulings that favour those in power.