Gabby Otchere-Darko, a Lawyer and leading member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has weighed in on suits filed at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of a provision of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana on presidential term limits.
The renowned legal practitioner highlighted that the case before the Supreme Court seeks an interpretation that when the Constitution says a President shall serve only two terms of office, it really means only two consecutive terms.
The NPP stalwart argued that Ghana’s current president, John Dramani Mahama, could remain in office for years after his second term should he keep losing his bid to serve two consecutive terms.
Gabby Otchere-Darko warned that if the argument succeeds, Ghana’s current President John Mahama could be running for president in 2028; if he loses, he can run again in 2032.
He argued that if Mahama fails to serve two consecutive terms using that argument, he could have run again for president, which would lead to endless Presidential comebacks should he keep losing his re-election into office.
In a post shared on X in reaction to a petition by Ganiwu Alhassan asking the court to interpret Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution as allowing a person who served two separate terms to contest again, treating the limit as resetting after non-consecutive service.
Gabby, in his post, detailed, “So let me get this straight about the case before the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation that when the Constitution says a President shall serve only two terms of office, it really means only two consecutive terms.
If that argument succeeds, then the current President, after completing this second term, could contest again in 2028, if he changes his expressed mind and so chooses. If he loses, he could return in 2032. If he wins in 2032, he could contest again in 2036 because, according to this theory, he still would not have served two consecutive terms. If he then loses in 2036, why stop there? He could run again in 2040, and if he wins, he could still seek another term in 2044 because only then would he have completed two back-to-back terms.
In other words, under this interpretation, the Constitution’s two-term limit magically resets every time a President loses a re-election attempt.
That is not interpreting the Constitution. It is rewriting it.
Gabby Otchere-Darko further argued that the Constitution sets a lifetime maximum of two terms total, not two consecutive ones, and that inserting “consecutive” would amount to judicial amendment rather than interpretation.
He added, “The Constitution says a President shall not hold office for more than two terms. It does not say two consecutive terms. Had the framers intended that qualification, they knew exactly how to say so. They didn’t.
Asking the Supreme Court to read into the Constitution a word its framers deliberately omitted is not constitutional interpretation; it is constitutional amendment by judicial decree.
If that becomes the law, then the Constitution will no longer impose a lifetime two-term limit on the presidency. It will merely prohibit a President from serving more than two terms in a row, an entirely different proposition.
Seriously, is that really the constitutional doctrine they want the Supreme Court to endorse?”.
Meanwhile, Ken Kuranchie, a Ghanaian news editor and lawyer, has filed a writ at the Supreme Court seeking interpretation of Ghana’s presidential term-limit.
Reports suggest the suit was filed on June 30, 2026, and was brought by Ken Kuranchie and Bridget Brita Buabeng of Besamho Legal Consult, Kasoa, representing him, with the Attorney-General, Dominic Ayine, named as the sole defendant.
The case refers to Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which limits a person to two terms as President of Ghana.
The suit is seeking an interpretation of Article 66(2) of the Constitution, arguing that the two-term presidential limit applies only after two consecutive elected four-year terms and that a break resets the eligibility count.
Ken Kuranchie is seeking three declarations from the court.
The first being that the two-term presidential limit in Article 66(2) only takes effect upon the completion of two consecutive terms of four years each.
“A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35(1), and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, the two-term presidential limit in Article 66(2) is properly construed as imposing a prohibition on election to the office of President of Ghana only upon the completion of two consecutive terms of four years each,” the writ stated.
The second a substantial break of one four-year electoral cycle resets the eligibility count.
“A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35(1), and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, a substantial break of one four-year electoral cycle of elected presidential service resets the eligibility count,” the writ added.
The third, that the prohibition in Article 66(2) is not engaged until a person has been elected to and has served two consecutive elected terms of four years each.
The writ added, “A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35(1), and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, the prohibition in Article 66(2) is not engaged until a person has been elected to and has served two consecutive elected terms of four years each”.
See the post below:
So let me get this straight about the case before the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation that when the Constitution says a President shall serve only two terms of office, it really means only two consecutive terms.
— Gabby Otchere-Darko (@GabbyDarko) July 9, 2026
If that argument succeeds, then the current President,… pic.twitter.com/HRBMMmgnF0
