Supreme Court Interpretation of Presidential Term Limits Sparks Debate over John Mahama’s Eligibility

The Supreme Court of Ghana has become the center of a high-stakes constitutional debate following three separate lawsuits seeking clarification on presidential term limits under Article 66 of the 1992 Constitution. These legal actions, most notably a recent writ filed by Ganiwu Alhassan on July 9, 2026, question whether a president who has served two terms—specifically in a non-consecutive manner—remains eligible to contest for the high office again. The outcome of these cases, which include Azubila E Salam v Attorney-General and Kenneth K A Kuranchie v Attorney-General, could significantly impact the political landscape regarding former President John Dramani Mahama, despite his previous assertions that he does not intend to seek a third term.

The core of the legal dispute lies in the interpretation of Article 66(2), which states that "a person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms." Litigant Ganiwu Alhassan argues that this restriction should only apply to consecutive terms, seeking a court declaration that would allow a candidate to run again if their terms were separated by another presidency. This interpretation has faced sharp criticism from the New Patriotic Party (NPP). Akosua Manu, an NPP spokesperson, has called for the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the constitutional language is explicit and that any deviation would undermine the integrity of Ghana’s democratic foundations and create uncertainty regarding presidential tenure.

From the National Democratic Congress (NDC), the reaction has been more nuanced. Hamza Suhuyini of the NDC Communications Team clarified that while the party is not a party to the legal suit, he would personally support a third-term bid for Mahama should the Supreme Court provide a favorable ruling. This stands in contrast to the advice from governance experts at the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana). Dr. Kojo Asante and Dr. John Osae-Kwapong have both urged the nation to respect the two-term limit, emphasizing that "two terms mean two terms." They cautioned that attempts to extend or bypass presidential tenure limits have historically led to instability in other African nations and suggested that Mahama should focus on his legacy rather than being embroiled in term-limit controversies.

As the Supreme Court prepares to deliver its interpretation, the case serves as a critical test for the resilience of the 1992 Constitution. While the legal proceedings move forward, observers note that President Mahama has previously expressed no interest in amending the Constitution for an extension. Nevertheless, the court's decision will set a definitive precedent for how presidential eligibility is determined in Ghana, potentially closing the door on the non-consecutive term argument or opening a new chapter in the country’s political history.