The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has petitioned the Supreme Court to interpret Ghana’s constitutional provisions on presidential term limits, seeking clarification on whether the two-term restriction applies to both consecutive and non-consecutive terms.
The suit, filed on July 28, 2026, by the party’s solicitor, Godfred Yeboah Dame of Dame & Partners, names the Attorney-General as the defendant and seeks declarations on Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.
The NPP wants the court to affirm that no person may be elected President more than twice or serve more than two four-year terms, amounting to eight years in total, regardless of whether the terms are consecutive.
The party is also seeking clarification on the eligibility of a Vice-President who assumes the presidency for more than half of a predecessor’s unexpired term. It wants such a person to be eligible to contest for only one presidential term.
The suit follows public debate over whether the constitutional phrase “two terms” could be interpreted as allowing a former President who served one term, lost re-election and later returned to office to serve two additional terms.
The NPP argues that such an interpretation would undermine the constitutional framework governing presidential tenure. In its statement of case, the party describes the proposition as “absurd” and “dangerous for the democracy, peace and stability of the nation.”
It further argues that interpreting the Constitution in that manner would amount to inserting words into the constitutional text and effectively amending it through judicial action.
The party also cites international examples, including the United States’ 22nd Amendment, and constitutional developments in other African countries in support of its position on presidential term limits.
The NPP has further referred to the Constitution Review Commission’s 2011 report, which recommended an amendment to clarify that a person who has served two presidential terms would not qualify to stand for re-election. The Supreme Court is being asked to provide an authoritative interpretation of the relevant provisions.
Story by Freedom Etsey Lavoe