The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has petitioned the Supreme Court to interpret constitutional provisions on presidential term limits, seeking clarity on whether President John Dramani Mahama can contest the 2028 presidential election.
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.
The party wants the apex court to determine whether the constitutional restriction of two presidential terms applies to a person’s total time in office, irrespective of whether the terms are served consecutively or interrupted by a period out of office.
In its statement of case, the NPP is seeking interpretations of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.
Among the reliefs sought, the party is asking the court to affirm that an individual may serve as President for a maximum of two terms, whether consecutive or non-consecutive.
It is also seeking a declaration that no person may be elected President more than twice or occupy the office for more than two four-year terms, totalling eight years.
The case further raises questions about the eligibility of a Vice-President who assumes the presidency and serves for more than half of the remaining tenure of a predecessor.
The NPP wants the court to declare that a person who serves under such circumstances would be eligible to contest a presidential election for only one term.
The party is also seeking clarity on whether someone who has already completed one presidential term can serve only one additional term, regardless of whether the two periods in office follow each other.
The legal action comes amid public discussion over the meaning of the constitutional provision limiting a President to “two terms” and whether it permits two terms that are not consecutive.
The NPP argues that interpreting the provision to mean two consecutive terms could create room for a person who has served one term, lost an immediate re-election bid and later returned to the presidency to serve two more terms.
The party maintains that such an interpretation would undermine the constitutional safeguards governing the duration of presidential tenure.
“Plaintiff considers this proposition not only absurd but dangerous for the democracy, peace and stability of the nation,” the statement of case reads.
It further argues that accepting that interpretation would amount to adding language to the Constitution that the framers did not include.
