A Ghanaian citizen has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, seeking a constitutional interpretation that could clarify whether a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms as President remains eligible to contest the presidency again.
The suit, filed on July 9, 2026, by Mr Ganiwu Alhassan, a teacher from Kpandai in the Northern Region, names the Attorney-General as the defendant.
The action was instituted through his solicitor, Kwasi Afrifa Esq of O & A Legal Consult in Kumasi, and is dated June 26, 2026.
The case centres on the interpretation of Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides that “a person shall not be elected to hold the office of President for more than two terms.”
Constitutional interpretation sought
In his writ, Mr Alhassan contends that the constitutional provision should be interpreted to mean that the prohibition applies only to two consecutive presidential terms and does not impose a lifetime ban on a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms.
He is therefore asking the Supreme Court to declare that a person who has previously served two distinct terms, separated by another President’s tenure, remains constitutionally eligible to contest the presidency again.
The plaintiff further argues that any attempt to prevent such a person from standing for election would be inconsistent with, and in contravention of, the 1992 Constitution.
The action has been brought under the Constitution’s enforcement provisions, which allow any citizen to seek judicial interpretation of constitutional matters.
Arguments before the court
According to the statement of case accompanying the writ, the plaintiff relies on the Preamble of the Constitution and several constitutional provisions dealing with presidential tenure and succession.
His legal team argues that the Constitution recognises situations where a Vice-President may complete an unexpired presidential term without automatically forfeiting the right to serve two full elected terms.
They contend that this demonstrates that the framers of the Constitution did not intend the two-term provision to operate as an absolute lifetime disqualification in circumstances where presidential service is not continuous.
The lawyers further submit that the Constitution should be interpreted purposively, taking into account both its letter and spirit rather than adopting an overly restrictive reading.
Legal authorities cited
The 34-page filing draws extensively on previous constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court, including the landmark cases of Tuffuor v Attorney-General, New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General, Sam v Attorney-General and Nartey v Attorney-General.
The plaintiff also relies on definitions contained in Black’s Law Dictionary and principles of constitutional interpretation that favour a broad and purposive reading of the Constitution.
According to the filing, constitutional provisions should be interpreted in a manner that promotes democratic governance and gives full effect to the intentions of the framers.
Attorney-General to respond
The writ directs the Attorney-General to file a statement of defence within 14 days after being served with the suit.
At the time of filing, no writ number had been assigned, and the matter is now awaiting determination by the Supreme Court.
The court’s eventual decision is expected to provide judicial clarity on the constitutional limits governing presidential tenure should the matter proceed to hearing.
Mahama has ruled out third-term bid
Although the case raises constitutional questions relating to presidential eligibility, President John Dramani Mahama, who is currently serving his second term after returning to office following the eight-year presidency of former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of seeking a third term.
In August 2025, during a visit to Singapore, President Mahama publicly reaffirmed that he had no plans to amend the Constitution or pursue another presidential term beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 66(2), however, could establish an important constitutional precedent on the meaning and scope of Ghana’s presidential term limits, with implications for future constitutional jurisprudence.
