Citizen goes to Supreme Court over presidential term limit
The plaintiff, Ganiwu Alhassan, wants the apex court to declare that a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms as President is still eligible to contest for the office again.
A teacher from Kpandai in the Northern Region has asked the Supreme Court to interpret Ghana’s presidential term limit rules in a case that could test the meaning of Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
The plaintiff, Ganiwu Alhassan, wants the apex court to declare that a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms as President is still eligible to contest for the office again.
The suit, filed on July 9, 2026, is against the Attorney-General.
It was filed by his solicitor, Kwasi Afrifa of O & A Legal Consult in Kumasi, and is dated June 26, 2026.
At the centre of the case is Article 66(2) of the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be elected to hold office as President for more than two terms.
Mr Alhassan is arguing that the provision should not be interpreted as an absolute lifetime bar in cases where the two terms were not served consecutively.
According to his writ, the constitutional restriction only prevents a person from serving two consecutive terms.
He is therefore seeking a declaration that stopping a person who has served two distinct, non-consecutive terms from contesting again would be inconsistent with the Constitution.
The plaintiff brought the action in his capacity as a Ghanaian citizen under the Constitution’s enforcement provisions.
His statement of case relies on the Preamble and several constitutional provisions, including provisions dealing with presidential succession where a Vice President completes an unexpired term.
His lawyers argue that because the Constitution does not automatically treat a partial or interrupted term as a bar to serving two full terms, the framers could not have intended Article 66(2) to operate as a strict lifetime cap in all situations.
The 34-page filing also cites a number of constitutional law decisions.
They include Tuffuor v Attorney-General, New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General, Sam v Attorney-General and Nartey v Attorney-General.
The plaintiff further relies on Black’s Law Dictionary and argues that the Constitution must be interpreted broadly, in line with both its letter and spirit.
The writ commands the Attorney-General to file a statement of defence within 14 days after service.
At the time of filing, no writ number had been assigned.
The matter is now before the Supreme Court for determination.
The case comes at a time when public discussion over presidential term limits has resurfaced because President John Dramani Mahama is serving a second term separated by the eight-year tenure of former President Nana Akufo-Addo.
President Mahama has, however, repeatedly stated that he has no intention of amending the Constitution to seek a third term.
In August 2025, he reiterated in Singapore that he had no plans to pursue a third presidential term.
