By Daniel Bampoe
The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has escalated the growing controversy surrounding President John Dramani Mahama’s eligibility to contest another presidential election by filing a suit at the Supreme Court, demanding a definitive interpretation of Ghana’s constitutional restrictions on presidential tenure.
The opposition party is challenging any interpretation of the 1992 Constitution that could allow an individual who has already served two presidential terms, separated by an electoral defeat, to return to power for another term. Although President Mahama has repeatedly dismissed suggestions that he intends to seek a third term, the legal battle has generated intense political debate, with constitutional lawyers, civil society organisations and senior figures within the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) warning against attempts to weaken Ghana’s presidential term limits.
The NPP’s intervention has transformed what began as a constitutional interpretation dispute into a major political confrontation over the future of executive power, the authority of the Supreme Court and the safeguards established under Ghana’s Fourth Republic.
The party argues that the Constitution must be interpreted to prevent a President from accumulating more than two terms in office, regardless of whether those terms are consecutive or separated by an interval out of power.
The controversy has become particularly sensitive because Mahama served as President from 2013 to 2017 before losing the 2016 presidential election to former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. He subsequently returned to the presidency following his victory in the December 2024 elections and was sworn into office on January 7, 2025.
The central question is whether the constitutional limit of two presidential terms applies to an individual’s total presidential service or only to two consecutive terms.
NPP Takes The Constitutional Battle To The Supreme Court
The NPP filed its action against the Attorney-General on July 30, 2026, bringing the number of related cases before the Supreme Court to five, according to Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai.
The party’s lawsuit, identified as New Patriotic Party v. Attorney-General, carries suit number J1/27/2026. The action invokes the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Constitution.
The NPP maintains that Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution is clear in stating that a person shall not be elected to hold the office of President for more than two terms.
According to the party’s argument, the provision does not contain the word “consecutive” and should not be interpreted as though it expressly limits presidential service to two successive terms only.
The NPP is therefore asking the Supreme Court to establish that an electoral defeat does not erase a presidential candidate’s previous service or create a fresh entitlement to another two terms.
The party’s position is that the ordinary four-year presidential tenure provided under Article 66(1), combined with the two-term restriction in Article 66(2), establishes an eight-year limit on presidential service through elected terms.
It argues that interpreting the Constitution to permit additional terms after an interval out of office could create a situation in which a former President repeatedly returns to power after losing elections.
Such an interpretation, the party contends, would undermine the purpose of presidential term limits and potentially create an opportunity for individuals to remain politically dominant for extended periods.
The NPP insists that its legal action is not simply about President Mahama but about establishing a constitutional precedent that will apply to future presidents regardless of their political affiliation.
4 Other Cases Already Before The Court
The NPP’s intervention followed four other cases concerning presidential term limits, demonstrating the growing legal and political significance of the dispute.
The first is Azubila E. Salam v. Attorney-General, suit number J1/4/2026, filed on December 23, 2025.
The second is Kenneth K.A. Kuranchie v. Attorney-General, suit number J1/20/2026, filed on June 30, 2026.
The third is Ganiwu Alhassan v. Attorney-General, suit number J1/21/2026, filed on July 9, 2026.
The fourth is Eric Appiah v. Attorney-General, suit number J1/26/2026, filed on July 20, 2026.
The five cases, including the NPP’s action, concern the constitutional framework governing presidential tenure and the meaning of the two-term restriction.
Among the most prominent cases is the action brought by Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie, a Ghanaian journalist and lawyer, seeking an interpretation of Article 66(2).
Another case was filed by Ganiwu Alhassan, a teacher from Kpandai in the Northern Region, who argues that a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive presidential terms should not automatically be disqualified from contesting the presidency again.
The argument advanced in these cases raises a fundamental constitutional question: does the expression “two terms” establish a lifetime limit on the number of presidential terms an individual can serve, or does it prohibit only two consecutive terms?
The NPP wants the Supreme Court to adopt the former interpretation and reject any attempt to read an additional qualification into the constitutional provision.
The party argues that permitting a fresh eligibility period after an electoral defeat could effectively transform Ghana’s two-term restriction into a limit that can be repeatedly reset.However, the precise legal arguments and remedies sought in the individual cases are not identical. Their common feature is the request for judicial clarification of the constitutional rules governing presidential tenure.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decisions could therefore have consequences extending beyond the immediate political circumstances surrounding Mahama.
Mahama’s Return To Power Fuels The Controversy
The political sensitivity surrounding the litigation is inseparable from Ghana’s recent electoral history.Mahama became President in January 2013 following the death of President John Evans Atta Mills and his subsequent victory in the December 2012 election.
He completed the remainder of Mills’ tenure and won a full presidential term in the 2012 election. However, he lost his bid for re-election in December 2016, allowing Akufo-Addo and the NPP to assume power in January 2017.
Mahama remained in opposition for eight years before defeating then Vice-President Mahamudu Bawumia in the December 2024 presidential election.
His return to the presidency has brought renewed attention to Article 66(2), particularly because his two periods in office were separated by the two-term administration of Akufo-Addo.
Those supporting a more permissive interpretation argue that the Constitution does not expressly use the word “consecutive” in Article 66(2). They contend that the Supreme Court should determine whether the provision prohibits a person from serving two separate presidential periods when the terms are not uninterrupted.
The NPP rejects that reasoning, maintaining that a person’s previous presidential service cannot simply be disregarded because another candidate defeated him at the polls.
The party argues that an electoral defeat should not provide a constitutional advantage by allowing a former President to return with a renewed opportunity to serve additional terms.
For the opposition, the matter is not merely about whether Mahama should contest another election. It concerns the interpretation of a constitutional safeguard designed to prevent the excessive concentration of executive power.
Asiedu Nketiah Warns Against Personalising The Debate
The controversy has also exposed differences in how political leaders are approaching the third-term discussion.
National Democratic Congress National Chairman Johnson Asiedu Nketiah has cautioned against reducing the constitutional debate to a personal contest over Mahama’s political future.
Speaking on the issue, Asiedu Nketiah argued that the underlying question concerns whether Ghana should retain its existing presidential term limits or consider changing the constitutional framework governing the presidency. He warned that framing the controversy as a contest between people who support Mahama and those who oppose him risks distracting the country from the broader constitutional implications.
According to Asiedu Nketiah, the debate should focus on the principle of presidential term limits rather than the personality of the incumbent President.
His intervention is significant because it comes from one of the most influential figures within the governing NDC, a party whose political fortunes are closely connected to Mahama’s return to office.
The NDC chairman’s concerns also reflect the potential danger of allowing discussions about constitutional interpretation to become entangled with internal party loyalty, presidential succession and political ambition.
The question of whether a President should serve no more than two terms has implications for every political party. A constitutional interpretation that creates additional opportunities for one individual could establish a precedent that benefits future presidents from either side of the political divide.
Asiedu Nketiah’s position therefore introduces an important distinction into the debate: defending Mahama’s current mandate is not necessarily the same as supporting an interpretation that could allow presidents to return to power repeatedly after electoral defeats.
The NDC leadership faces the delicate task of supporting the President’s administration while ensuring that discussions about constitutional reform do not create the impression that the party intends to weaken democratic safeguards for political convenience.
NPP Leadership Rejects Third-Term Speculation
Within the NPP, the Supreme Court action forms part of a broader effort to challenge the suggestion that Ghana’s presidential term limits could be interpreted to permit another Mahama presidency after his current mandateThe party’s leadership maintains that the Constitution should be interpreted consistently, without creating exceptions based on an individual’s popularity, electoral performance or political influence.
Former NPP Director of Communications Richard Ahiagbah has also rejected claims that the party created the controversy, arguing that the constitutional question is already before the Supreme Court and deserves a clear legal determination.
The party has maintained that Ghana is not prepared to abandon its established presidential term limits and has expressed confidence that Mahama will not pursue another term.
Former NPP National Organiser Sammi Awuku has separately cautioned the President against those encouraging a third-term agenda, arguing that such calls could damage his political legacy rather than strengthen it.
Awuku’s position reflects a concern within the opposition that public pressure for an additional term could place Mahama in a politically difficult position, particularly if the discussion becomes associated with attempts to extend presidential power.
Prominent lawyer and NPP stalwart Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko has also opposed efforts to manipulate constitutional provisions to suit political interests, maintaining that presidential term limits must be respected.
The party’s legal action consequently carries implications for the relationship between political leadership, constitutional interpretation and democratic accountability.
However, the filing of the suit should not be interpreted as proof that Mahama has initiated a third-term campaign. The President has repeatedly denied any intention to remain in office beyond his current mandate.
Mahama Insists He Has Only One Term To Serve
President Mahama has consistently rejected suggestions that he intends to seek a third presidential term.
In July 2026, he stated that his focus remained on fulfilling the promises he made to Ghanaians when they elected him in December 2024.
He said he considered the constitutional provision governing presidential tenure sufficiently clear and maintained that his current mandate was the one he intended to fulfil.
Mahama also indicated that those seeking a Supreme Court interpretation were exercising their legal rights, but he did not consider the litigation a reason to change his stated position.
The President’s comments were intended to distance his administration from the growing controversy and reassure the public that he remained committed to the constitutional limits governing his office.
Nevertheless, the existence of multiple lawsuits means the matter is no longer simply a political discussion. The Supreme Court has been asked to settle a constitutional question with potentially far-reaching consequences for future presidential elections.
The litigation also presents a challenge for the government, which must respond through the appropriate legal processes without allowing public speculation to overshadow its stated policy priorities.
