Reject third-term lawsuits with costs – CRC Chairman to Supreme Court

Constitutional Review Committee Chairman, Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh, has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss lawsuits seeking an interpretation of the constitutional provision on presidential term limits.

The suits, currently before the apex court, argue that a president could be eligible to seek a third term in office under certain circumstances.

Mahama rejects third-term push at closed-door meeting with NDC elders

The issue has sparked public debate, with investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni cautioning President John Dramani Mahama against acting on any ruling that could suggest a president is eligible to seek another term.

"Whichever way the Supreme Court rules, President Mahama must not fall for the ruinous trap being set by THOSE BEHIND the suits," Manasseh wrote in a Facebook post on Friday, July 10, 2026.

Reacting to the issue, Prof Prempeh argued that the lawsuits do not raise a genuine constitutional dispute because no one has taken any action that challenges the settled interpretation of Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution.

According to him, the Supreme Court's constitutional mandate is to interpret and enforce the Constitution only when there is an actual dispute, not to answer hypothetical legal questions.

"The Supreme Court must dismiss the lawsuit outright—with costs! There is no CASE for the Court to adjudicate or decide here," he stated.

He further argued that the court should not allow its jurisdiction to be used to determine speculative matters.

"The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce the Constitution is not meant to be expended to answer hypothetical, speculative or classroom questions," he said.

Prof Prempeh stressed that there is currently no attempt by any individual to act in a way that puts the accepted interpretation of Article 66(2) in dispute.

He therefore urged the court to decline the invitation to rule on what he described as an academic issue.

"Nobody has attempted or taken any step that would suggest an attempt on their part to act in a manner that puts the settled understanding of Article 66(2) in contention or dispute," he continued.

"The Court must resist the temptation to weigh in on every academic question that comes before it dressed up as a lawsuit. The Supreme Court is not there to issue advisory opinions or answer potential law school exam questions. The Court's jurisdiction is not properly triggered here,” he added.

About the writ

Filed by Ghanaian news editor and lawyer, Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie, also known as Ken Kuranchie, it seeks a definitive interpretation of the country's presidential term-limit provisions.

The case refers to Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which limits a person to two terms as President of Ghana.

The plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to interpret whether that provision applies only to two consecutive terms and whether a substantial break between elected terms resets a person's eligibility count.

Specifically, the plaintiff is seeking three declarations from the court.

First, that the two-term presidential limit in Article 66(2) only takes effect upon the completion of two consecutive terms of four years each.

“A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35(1), and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, the two-term presidential limit in Article 66(2) is properly construed as imposing a prohibition on election to the office of President of Ghana only upon the completion of two consecutive terms of four years each,” the writ stated.

Second, that a substantial break of one four-year electoral cycle resets the eligibility count.

“A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35(1), and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, a substantial break of one four-year electoral cycle of elected presidential service resets the eligibility count,” the writ added.

Ken Kuranchie drags AG to Supreme Court, argues President is eligible for a third term

Third, that the prohibition in Article 66(2) is not engaged until a person has been elected to and has served two consecutive elected terms of four years each.

“A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35(1), and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, the prohibition in Article 66(2) is not engaged until a person has been elected to and has served two consecutive elected terms of four years each,” the writ said.



MAG/VPO

TrendingGH: Ghanaians react to reported rejection of Ramaphosa's State