The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has petitioned the Supreme Court of Ghana to provide clarity on the country's presidential term limits. Filed on July 28, 2026, the writ of summons and statement of case seek to settle a public debate over whether a person who has served two presidential terms at different periods can contest again for the presidency in 2028. The NPP's solicitor, Godfred Yeboah Dame, filed the case on behalf of the party, naming the Attorney-General as the defendant.
At the centre of the case is the interpretation of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of Ghana's 1992 Constitution. The NPP is asking the court to determine whether the constitutional reference to a President serving “two terms” means a maximum of two four-year terms in total, irrespective of whether those terms are served consecutively or separated by a period out of office. This question has sparked intense debate, with some arguing that the provision only applies to consecutive terms.
The NPP is seeking several declarations from the Supreme Court, including an affirmation that no person may be elected President more than twice or occupy the presidency for more than two four-year terms, amounting to eight years in total. The party also wants the court to clarify the eligibility of a Vice-President who assumes the presidency and serves for more than half of the remaining term of a predecessor. According to the NPP, such a person should be eligible to contest for the office for only one further term.
The case has significant implications for Ghana's democracy, with the NPP arguing that interpreting the Constitution to permit two consecutive terms rather than two terms in total could create a situation where a person who has served one term, failed to win immediate re-election, and subsequently returned to office could potentially serve two additional terms. The party describes this possibility as inconsistent with the constitutional framework on presidential tenure and a threat to the country's democracy, peace, and stability.
The NPP has referred to international constitutional practice in support of its position, including the United States' 22nd Amendment, which places a limit on the number of times an individual can be elected President. The party has also cited constitutional developments in other African countries, arguing that attempts to extend or alter presidential term limits have contributed to political instability in some jurisdictions.
In its case, the NPP has relied on the 2011 report of Ghana's Constitution Review Commission, which recommended an amendment to make it clear that a person who has served two terms as President would not be eligible to seek re-election. The party is therefore asking the Supreme Court to provide an authoritative interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions and settle the question of whether the two-term presidential limit applies cumulatively or only to consecutive periods in office.
The outcome of this case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for Ghana's democracy and could potentially impact the eligibility of certain individuals to contest the presidency in 2028. The Supreme Court's decision will provide much-needed clarity on the country's presidential term limits, helping to prevent potential conflicts and ensure the smooth transition of power.
Key points
- The NPP is seeking clarity on whether a person who has served two presidential terms at different periods can contest again for the presidency in 2028.
- The case has significant implications for Ghana's democracy, with the NPP arguing that a certain interpretation of the Constitution could lead to a person serving more than two terms.
- The NPP has referred to international constitutional practice, including the United States' 22nd Amendment, in support of its position.
