A teacher from Ghana’s Northern Region has petitioned the Supreme Court to interpret Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution in a case that could clarify how presidential term limits apply to non-consecutive terms.
The plaintiff, Ganiwu Alhassan, filed the action against the Attorney-General, asking the country’s highest court to determine whether a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms as President may contest another presidential election.
The petition has drawn public attention because it relates to President John Dramani Mahama, who has served two non-consecutive presidential terms. However, the case does not determine the President’s eligibility. Instead, it asks the Supreme Court to provide an authoritative interpretation of the constitutional provision.
Petition Seeks Interpretation of Article 66(2)
In his filing, Alhassan argues that Article 66(2) should be interpreted as preventing a person from serving more than two consecutive presidential terms, rather than barring two non-consecutive terms.
He is asking the Supreme Court to declare that the constitutional restriction applies only to consecutive terms and that a former President who has completed two separate terms remains eligible to seek election again.
These arguments reflect the position of the plaintiff and will be considered by the Court as part of the constitutional proceedings.
Article 66(2) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution states that a person shall not be elected to hold office as President for more than two terms.
The petition asks the Supreme Court to clarify how that provision should be interpreted where the two terms were not served consecutively. The Court’s role in the case is to interpret the Constitution. It has not yet ruled on the issues raised in the petition.
The Attorney-General has been named as the respondent because the office represents the State in constitutional matters. As with other constitutional cases, the Attorney-General will have the opportunity to respond to the legal arguments before the Court reaches a decision.
The Supreme Court is expected to determine the matter based on the constitutional text, legal precedent and submissions from the parties.
Constitutional Interpretation Process
Under Ghana’s Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret constitutional provisions when disputes arise over their meaning or application.
Legal experts note that constitutional interpretation cases focus on clarifying the law rather than resolving political questions.
The Court’s decision, when delivered, will provide legal guidance on the interpretation of Article 66(2) within Ghana’s constitutional framework.
No Ruling Has Been Made
The petition represents the beginning of a constitutional legal process. At the time of publication, the Supreme Court had not heard the case or delivered a ruling, and no determination had been made on the issues raised by the plaintiff.
Until the Court issues its judgment, the legal arguments remain matters for judicial consideration.
