NPP runs to Supreme Court over Mahama’s eligibility for another term

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether President John Dramani Mahama could be eligible for another term in office if presidential terms are separated by an election defeat.

The party has sued the Attorney-General, seeking an authoritative interpretation of constitutional provisions governing presidential tenure and the two-term limit under the 1992 Constitution.

The case centres on whether the restriction on presidential terms applies to a person’s total time in office, regardless of whether the terms are consecutive or interrupted by another president’s tenure.

The NPP wants the court to declare that a person who has served one term as President can serve for only one additional term, even if another person occupies the presidency in between.

In its statement of case, the party argues that a president should not be allowed to serve beyond the constitutional limit simply because the terms are not consecutive.

The NPP is also asking the court to clarify whether a former president who has served two terms could become eligible for another term after losing an election and subsequently returning to office.

The legal action comes amid public speculation about Mahama’s eligibility to contest the 2028 presidential election. The President, however, has dismissed suggestions that he intends to pursue a third term, saying he has a mandate for one additional term.

The party argues that the two-term limit should not depend on whether a president serves consecutive terms or returns to office after an electoral defeat.

In its filing, the NPP describes the possibility of a former president serving additional terms after an interruption as “not only absurd but dangerous for the democracy, peace and stability of the nation.”

The party further contends that interpreting the Constitution to require consecutive terms would amount to inserting words that are not expressly included in the constitutional text.

“Acceding to this interpretation will condone and sanction manipulation of clear provisions in the Constitution as it involves inserting words into the constitutional text—it will involve amending the Constitution through judicial fiat,” the statement of case reads.

The NPP is asking the Supreme Court to settle the matter through its original jurisdiction and establish a clear legal position on presidential eligibility.

Its filing seeks an interpretation of Articles 58(2), 66(1), 66(2) and 66(3)(a) of the Constitution, alongside related provisions concerning a Vice-President who assumes the presidency for part of an unexpired term.

Article 66(1) of the 1992 Constitution sets the presidential term at four years, while Article 66(2) states that a person cannot be elected President for more than two terms.

Article 66(3) addresses circumstances in which a Vice-President assumes the presidency following a vacancy and sets conditions relating to eligibility to contest a subsequent presidential election.

The NPP’s action seeks to clarify how these provisions should apply when a person’s presidential terms are separated rather than consecutive.