Private legal practitioner Ken Kuranchie has rejected suggestions that a case he is pursuing at the Supreme Court is aimed at securing a third term for President John Mahama.
Mr Kuranchie said the case is about seeking clarity on the interpretation of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution and the issue of consecutive presidential terms.
He said the action is based on the argument that a person elected as President can serve two terms, and that eligibility should be considered afresh if the person leaves office after serving only one term.
“We are in the Supreme Court asking for what we believe is one of the most important political issues in our democracy.
“Whether the presidency is consecutive or not, if it is consecutive, then what it says clearly is that the person related to the office of president shall serve two terms, or shall serve for two terms,” he said.
Mr Kuranchie explained that his argument relies on a broader reading of the Constitution rather than a single provision.
“The 1992 Constitution is a document that is too generous. It is a big document, and it is to be read as a whole,” he said.
He added that the case is not limited to one article of the Constitution but requires consideration of the entire document.
“That is why we are not depending on, unlike the other petitioner, we are not depending on Article 662 alone. We have worked in other provisions of the other articles and parts of the 1982 Constitution, like Article 264, 26462, and all that.
“If you read the constitution as a whole, then you may come to a certain conclusion.”
The legal practitioner insisted that the case should not be interpreted as an attempt to open the way for President Mahama to seek a third term in office.
“I’ve heard arguments about a third term. We are not seeking a third term for President Mahama. That is not about what we are doing,” he said.
Mr Kuranchie said the focus is on whether the Constitution allows a former president who served only one term to contest again.
“What we are doing is that we are saying that the presidency is consecutive. If you recall, around 2023, I took a similar route to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that matter is still hanging in the Supreme Court. It has not been resolved,” he said.
According to him, the issue before the court is whether the eligibility of a person who leaves office after one term is reset.
“That’s saying that once he’s elected out of office, if he serves only one term, then the eligibility criteria is preset. So the person elected shall serve not more than two terms. Quite explicit,” he said.
Mr Kuranchie acknowledged that the outcome of the case could potentially affect President Mahama’s political future, but maintained that was not the objective of the action.
“I was asked this question, and I don’t have a problem. You see, it’s not about a third term. It’s about whether he is eligible to stand for another term,” he said.
He added that any possible consequence of the Supreme Court’s interpretation would be separate from the purpose of the case.
“That may be the effect, but that is not what we are seeking. In fact, if you read my writ, it doesn’t mention Mr Mahama.
“We are saying that if you read the entire 1992 Constitution, bring in the relevant process, and then the opportunity lies there that he can serve consecutively.”