The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether Ghana’s constitutional restriction limiting a person to two presidential terms applies to all terms served, regardless of whether they are consecutive, in a case that could have significant implications for the eligibility of former presidents seeking to return to office.
The suit, titled New Patriotic Party v. The Attorney-General, seeks an interpretation of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution. The party is asking the Court to determine the scope of the constitutional restriction on presidential tenure and clarify whether a person who has previously served one term may subsequently serve two additional terms after a break from office.
The writ of summons and statement of case are dated July 28, 2026, and were filed by the party’s solicitor, Godfred Yeboah Dame of Dame & Partners. The Attorney-General is named as the defendant.
The suit is one of five cases identified by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai as pending before the Supreme Court concerning presidential term limits. In a Facebook post on August 14, 2026, he disclosed that the NPP had filed its action on July 30, bringing the number of related cases before the apex court to five.
Five Suits Before the Supreme Court
The NPP’s action follows four suits brought by individual plaintiffs seeking judicial determination of questions relating to presidential tenure. The five cases are:
- Azubila E. Salam v. The Attorney-General — Suit No. J1/4/2026, filed on December 23, 2025.
- Kenneth K.A. Kuranchie v. The Attorney-General — Suit No. J1/20/2026, filed on June 30, 2026.
- Ganiwu Alhassan v. The Attorney-General — Suit No. J1/21/2026, filed on July 9, 2026.
- Eric Appiah v. The Attorney-General — Suit No. J1/26/2026, filed on July 20, 2026.
- New Patriotic Party v. The Attorney-General — Suit No. J1/27/2026, filed on July 30, 2026.
The Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, is the defendant in all five cases. Although they concern presidential term limits, the specific claims and reliefs sought must be assessed from the respective court processes.
The NPP’s suit focuses on the question of whether the constitutional restriction is based on the total number of presidential terms served or whether a break between terms affects the application of that restriction.
What Does the Constitution Say?
Article 66(1) of the 1992 Constitution provides for a four-year presidential term, while Article 66(2) states that a person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms.
The NPP is asking the Supreme Court to declare that the two-term limit applies whether the terms are consecutive or non-consecutive. It also seeks a declaration that a person cannot be elected President more than twice or hold the office for more than two four-year terms, amounting to eight years in total.
The party’s concern is that an interpretation restricting only consecutive terms could permit a former President who has served one term, left office and subsequently returned to the presidency to serve two additional terms.
In its statement of case, the NPP characterises that possibility as dangerous to Ghana’s democracy, peace and stability. It argues that interpreting the Constitution to permit such an outcome would effectively introduce words into the constitutional text that are not there.
The party contends that adopting a consecutive-term interpretation would amount to amending the Constitution through judicial interpretation rather than following the constitutionally prescribed amendment process.
These assertions remain the NPP’s arguments. The Supreme Court has not yet determined the merits of the claims or granted the declarations sought.
Presidential Succession and the Two-Term Limit
The suit also raises questions about the eligibility of a Vice-President who assumes the presidency for more than half of a predecessor’s unexpired term.
Article 60(6) of the Constitution provides for the Vice-President to assume the presidency in specified circumstances, including the death, resignation or removal of the sitting President. Article 60(7) addresses the eligibility of a Vice-President who serves more than half of the predecessor’s unexpired term, providing that such a person is subsequently eligible to serve only one full term as President.
The NPP is seeking clarification on the operation of this provision alongside the general two-term restriction. It also asks the Court to clarify whether a person who has previously served one presidential term may serve only one additional term, irrespective of whether the two terms are consecutive.
The determination of these questions could clarify how the Constitution treats presidential terms served through election and succession, as well as the relationship between the general term limit and the specific rule governing a Vice-President who assumes the presidency.
International Examples and Earlier Constitutional Reform Proposals
To support its position, the NPP relies on international examples, including the Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which restricts the number of times a person may be elected President of the United States.
The party also refers to constitutional developments in other African countries, arguing that attempts to alter presidential term limits have contributed to political instability in some jurisdictions.
Additionally, it cites the 2011 report of Ghana’s Constitution Review Commission, which recommended an amendment to clarify that a person who has served two presidential terms would not qualify to stand for re-election.
These materials form part of the party’s argument for a cumulative interpretation of the two-term restriction. The question, however, is how the Supreme Court will interpret the language and structure of Ghana’s Constitution.
Government’s Proposed Constitutional Reforms
The litigation comes amid a wider debate about proposed constitutional changes affecting presidential tenure.
On July 30, 2026, the Attorney-General announced that the government had accepted the Constitutional Review Committee’s recommendation to extend the presidential term from four years to five years. He also announced a proposal to reduce the minimum age for presidential candidates from 40 to 35 years.
Dr. Ayine stated that the proposed extension of the presidential term would not apply to the incumbent President. The Constitutional Review Committee had recommended a five-year term but did not recommend introducing a third term for a sitting President.
These proposals raise questions distinct from those before the Court in the NPP’s action. Extending the length of each presidential term concerns the duration of the mandate, while the two-term restriction concerns the number of times a person may be elected President.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court’s eventual determination will depend on the constitutional arguments advanced by the parties, the provisions under consideration and the reliefs the Court finds legally justified.
The five pending suits place the interpretation of presidential term limits before the apex court, but the filing of the actions does not mean that the Court has accepted the plaintiffs’ positions. Nor does the number of pending cases establish that all the plaintiffs are advancing identical arguments.
For the NPP, the key question is whether the two-term restriction under the 1992 Constitution applies cumulatively, regardless of interruptions in presidential service. The Court’s interpretation could provide important guidance on the eligibility of former presidents seeking election again and on the constitutional rules governing presidential succession.
Until the Court delivers its determination, the claims remain unresolved, and the existing constitutional provisions continue to govern presidential tenure.
