Kwaku Azar explains why NPP’s suit on presidential term limit may face a hurdle

Renowned legal practitioner and governance advocate, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has questioned whether the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) suit on presidential term limits presents a genuine legal dispute for the Supreme Court to resolve.

In a Facebook post on October 28, 2026, he argued that the court should not be asked to interpret the Constitution simply because people disagree over what its provisions mean.

According to him, the NPP must first establish that there is an actual constitutional dispute requiring the court’s intervention. Otherwise, the court could dismiss the case without deciding whether the presidential two-term limit applies to consecutive and non-consecutive terms.

“Can the Supreme Court be asked to interpret the Constitution merely to settle a public debate?

“The answer is NO!” he wrote.

Kwaku Azar cited Article 2(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which allows a person to invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction where an enactment, act or omission is alleged to be inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution.

He argued that the provision does not give the court a general mandate to clarify constitutional provisions whenever questions arise in public discussions.

He questioned what specific law, unconstitutional act or omission the NPP was challenging, arguing that no one had yet attempted to contest a third presidential election.

His concern is that the party may be asking the court to settle a question about a possible future situation without identifying a concrete constitutional dispute that requires judicial intervention.

In other words, the legal hurdle is whether the NPP has sufficient grounds to bring the case before the Supreme Court at this stage. The court would have to consider that question before proceeding to determine the meaning of the presidential term-limit provisions.

The legal practitioner cited Bilson v. Attorney-General [1993–94] 1 GLR 104, in which the Supreme Court dismissed an action seeking declarations concerning a constitutional indemnity provision without an actual dispute requiring its interpretation.

He explained that the decision distinguished between asking the court to resolve a real legal dispute and seeking its opinion on how the law might apply in a hypothetical situation.

Kwaku Azar also referred to Republic v. Special Tribunal; Ex parte Akosah [1980] GLR 592, which identified circumstances in which constitutional interpretation questions may arise, including ambiguity in constitutional language, competing interpretations and conflicts between constitutional provisions.

However, he cautioned that disagreement among lawyers, academics, politicians and members of the public does not automatically create a constitutional dispute that must be taken to court.

“Citizens, lawyers, academics, and political parties are free to express different views about the meaning of constitutional provisions. That is healthy constitutional discourse.

“But merely because someone advances a different interpretation does not mean the Supreme Court must be invited to settle the disagreement,” he stated.

He warned that treating every public disagreement over constitutional meaning as a matter for the Supreme Court could turn debates on radio, television and social media into court cases.

Kwaku Azar maintained that the court must first determine whether the NPP’s suit raises a genuine constitutional dispute before considering the substantive interpretation the party is seeking.

He acknowledged that the precise pleadings would be important in determining whether the case meets the requirements for judicial determination.

He further argued that where a writ fails to disclose a justiciable cause of action, the court should dismiss it at the earliest procedurally appropriate opportunity.

“Judicial resources are scarce. They must be devoted to resolving genuine disputes, not providing free constitutional consultations,” he added.

What the NPP wants the Supreme Court to decide

The NPP is seeking the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, particularly whether the presidential two-term limit applies to both consecutive and non-consecutive terms.

The case has implications for President John Dramani Mahama’s eligibility to contest the 2028 general election. Mahama previously served as president from 2012 to 2017 before returning to office in 2025.

Among the reliefs it is seeking, the NPP wants the court to declare 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.

NPP files suit at Supreme Court to challenge John Mahama's eligibility for another term

Article 66(2) of the Constitution states that a person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms.

The NPP wants the court to clarify how this restriction applies when a person’s presidential terms are separated by a period out of office.

However, Kwaku Azar’s objection is not that the NPP’s interpretation is necessarily wrong. Rather, he questions whether the party has established a sufficient legal basis for the court to consider the matter in the first place.

“The Supreme Court is a court of law, not a constitutional advice centre,” he stated.

According to him, the Supreme Court’s assessment of the writ will determine whether the suit satisfies the necessary jurisdictional requirements. If it proceeds to the merits, the court will then have to consider the constitutional interpretation being sought.

See the post below:



JKB/VPO

Ghana Airports at 20: How Two Decades Have Transformed Air Travel