Kennedy Osei Nyarko, the Member of Parliament for Akim Swedru, has said the Supreme Court don’t have the power to amend Ghana’s presidential term limits.
The NPP MP argued that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Ghana’s presidential term limits will not make any former or sitting president eligible for an additional term.
According to Kennedy Osei Nyarko, the 1992 Constitution is clear on the presidential term limit and cannot be changed through a court interpretation.
In a Facebook post, the NPP MP stated, “The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the presidential term limits, whether in favour of or against the proponents, will not automatically qualify any sitting president who is done with their term to be eligible for another term”.
He stressed that only a constitutional amendment through a national referendum can alter Article 66 of the Constitution, adding that Parliament, acting alone, does not have the authority to amend the presidential term limit.
“The Constitution is unambiguous on the term limit of any president. Not even Parliament on their own can alter the presidential term without a referendum”.
Kennedy Osei Nyarko further described the legal action seeking the Supreme Court’s interpretation as “an exercise in futility”.
He added, “Even though it’s the constitutional right of those who have taken the issue to the Supreme Court for interpretation, they are just embarking on an exercise in futility since the Supreme Court itself knows they don’t have the powers to amend or otherwise alter any part of Article 66 of the 1992 Constitution”.
“This is just common sense which should not elude any reasonable human being who understands the architecture of our Constitution.”
Meanwhile, 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?”.
@ghnow_ Traders in Bolgatanga, the Upper East Regional capital, have taken to the streets to protest the withdrawal of the Inspector-General of Police’s (IGP) Special Operations Team from the region #GHNow #fyp ♬ son original – Power of Passion Genies2Babi
@ghnow_ Justice beyond the courtroom. The Judicial Service is taking legal education directly to communities as part of activities marking the Supreme Court’s 150th Anniversary. #GHNow #fyp ♬ original sound – GHnow
