The Supreme Court of Ghana has been asked to determine whether a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms as President can contest the presidency again, a legal question that has sparked fresh debate over the country’s constitutional term-limit provisions.
The case was filed by a Ghanaian citizen, Ganiwu Alhassan, a teacher from Kpandai in the Northern Region, against the Attorney-General. The writ, filed on July 9, 2026, seeks the court’s interpretation of Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be elected President for more than two terms.
The suit has drawn attention because of its implications for President John Dramani Mahama, who returned to office after serving his first term from 2013 to 2017 and later winning the presidency again in 2024 after the eight-year tenure of former President Nana Akufo-Addo.
President Mahama has, however, repeatedly stated that he has no intention of seeking to amend the Constitution or pursue a third term in office. In August 2025, he reiterated during a visit to Singapore that he had no plans to seek another term beyond his current mandate.
In his legal action, Alhassan argues that Article 66(2) does not expressly prevent a person who has served two non-consecutive terms from contesting the presidency again. According to the plaintiff, the constitutional restriction only bars a person from serving more than two consecutive terms.
The plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to declare that preventing a person who has served two separate presidential terms from contesting again would be inconsistent with the Constitution.
The writ was filed through his solicitor, Kwasi Afrifa Esq. of O & A Legal Consult in Kumasi, and relies on several constitutional provisions, including those relating to presidential succession and the completion of an unexpired term by a Vice President.
The plaintiff’s statement of case argues that the Constitution does not treat every period of presidential service in the same way and suggests that a partial or interrupted term does not automatically count as a full term for the purpose of determining eligibility.
The 34-page filing cites previous Supreme Court decisions, including Tuffuor v Attorney-General, New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General, Sam v Attorney-General, and Nartey v Attorney-General, while urging the court to interpret the Constitution in line with both its wording and broader purpose.
The Attorney-General has been directed to file a statement of defence within fourteen days after being served with the writ.
The case is now before the Supreme Court for determination and could provide a significant interpretation of Ghana’s presidential term-limit rules under the 1992 Constitution.
