In October 2025, I wrote about constitutional fidgeting regarding term limits.
It is essentially the case where incumbents reset the constitutional clock on term limits, making them eligible not only to contest elections again but also to hold on to power.
I highlighted that Ghana has been fortunate enough to escape this phenomenon, which has bedevilled some of its neighbours.
This past week, Ghanaians learned of lawsuits that have been filed at the Supreme Court seeking “a proper interpretation” of the presidential term limits clause in the Constitution.
In a Facebook post, the Deputy Attorney General confirmed that there are three pending suits on this.
The question before the court is this – does the two-term clause mean – a) consecutive or b) any two terms? In essence, does the Constitution see the two terms as former Presidents Rawlings, Kufuor and Akufo-Addo served (back-to-back), or as President
Mahama would have served come 2028 (one term, then returning in election cycles later to serve another term)?
The answer is of great consequence, especially if the court rules that two terms means “back- to-back.” It would allow President John Mahama to seek another term in office.
I must state that months ago, when there was chatter about a third term for President Mahama, he categorically stated that he intended to respect the term limits imposed by the
Constitution and exit the stage in 2028.
That was before these lawsuits.
And not knowing how the courts will rule raises the question of whether a ruling stating that two terms mean “back-to-back” will change the calculus for the President. I sincerely hope not.
Where is the ambiguity?
Constitutional language can sometimes be vague. It leaves us wondering what the framers intended by all the clauses in a Constitution.
In addition, the exercise of powers or the enjoyment of rights enshrined in the Constitution does raise vexing questions – did the President exceed his powers; does Parliament have the power to pass a particular legislation; did the police violate a citizen’s right; did the citizen cross the line in enjoying their free speech rights?
Settling ambiguity or resolving vexatious questions is why we have a Supreme Court – to help us understand what the framers meant and intended, as well as to guide us on proper conduct that does not offend the Constitution.
I say all this to make this point – I do not begrudge any citizen who finds themselves at the Supreme Court seeking to do any of the things I have described above.
But ever since news of the lawsuits became public, I have been asking myself this simple question – where is the ambiguity?
Is the language of about two terms so unclear that we need to ask for the Supreme Court’s intervention? In my humble opinion, I say no.
What else could our framers have meant by “a person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms?”
The search for the meaning of this plain text is worrying and while I am not the kind of person who tends to question people’s motives, I wonder what is driving not only the charter but also the invocation of the court’s authority to help settle this matter.
Respecting constitutional term limits
The Ghanaian Constitution emerged from a period of political entrenchment (11 years of military rule), suggesting that the framers were determined to avoid a repeat.
For this reason, they made it clear in Article 66(2) that “no President is to serve more than two terms.”
If there had been a need to specify how to operationalise the “two terms” language, it would have been included.
One of the positive developments of Ghana’s democracy is the respect shown for constitutional term limits by persons who have been elected President and by our two main political parties, which have peacefully accepted power transitions after losing an election.
I was quite intrigued when a co-panellist this past weekend expressed his desire to see the
President serve another term because of concerns about the continuity of his good works.
Granted, he added that if the court decides that two terms mean any two and not consecutively, he will respect that.
Fair enough.
But should continuity of a President’s good work be the basis for rethinking the meaning of term limits? Respectfully, I say no.
Ghana’s democracy has other challenges to address, but the meaning of “two terms” is certainly not one of them. I pray the court guides us away from this moment.
I pray President Mahama reiterates his commitment to term limits.
I pray the voices engaging in chatter about a third term will have a change of heart.
The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project
