NPP heads to Supreme Court over interpretation of presidential limit

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has filed a suit at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing presidential term limits. The writ of summons and statement of case, dated July 28, 2026, were filed by the party’s solicitor, Godfred Yeboah Dame of Dame & Partners, with the Attorney-General named as the defendant.

The party is asking the court to clarify whether the constitutional limit of two presidential terms applies regardless of whether the terms are served consecutively or are separated by a period out of office. In its statement of case, the NPP is seeking declarations on the interpretation of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.

Among other reliefs, the party wants the court to declare that the presidential term limit means a maximum of two terms, whether consecutive or non-consecutive. It is also asking the court to affirm that a person cannot be elected President more than twice and cannot hold the office for more than two four-year terms, amounting to eight years in total.

The NPP is further seeking clarification on the eligibility of a Vice-President who assumes the presidency for more than half of a predecessor’s unexpired term. It wants the court to declare that such a person would be eligible to contest for election as President for only one term. The party is also asking the court to clarify whether a person who has previously served one presidential term may serve only one additional term, regardless of whether the two terms are consecutive.

The suit follows public debate over whether the constitutional phrase “two terms” could be interpreted to mean two consecutive terms rather than two terms in total. The NPP argues that such an interpretation could allow a person who has served one term, lost an attempt at immediate re-election and later returned to office to serve two additional terms.

The party describes that interpretation as a threat to the constitutional framework governing 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 argues that adopting such an interpretation would effectively introduce words into the Constitution that are not contained in the text.

“Acceding to this interpretation will condone and sanction manipulation of clear provisions in the Constitution as it involves inserting words into the constitutional text—it will involve amending the Constitution through judicial fiat,” the party states. The NPP’s arguments also draw on international examples, including the United States’ 22nd Amendment, which limits the number of times a person may be elected President.

The party further refers to constitutional developments in other African countries and argues that attempts to alter presidential term limits have contributed to political instability in some jurisdictions. It also cites the Constitution Review Commission’s 2011 report, which recommended an amendment to clarify that a person who has served two presidential terms would not qualify to stand for re-election.

NPP V. AG (Mahama’s 3rd Term Bid)Download