Teacher petitions Supreme Court over Mahama’s third-term eligibility
Citizen Seeks Constitutional Interpretation
A Ghanaian teacher has filed a writ at the Supreme Court seeking a constitutional interpretation on whether a president who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms can legally contest the presidency again.
The suit was filed on July 9, 2026, by Ganiwu Alhassan, a teacher from Kpandai in the Northern Region. The action is against the Attorney-General and was filed through his lawyer, Kwasi Afrifa Esq. of O & A Legal Consult in Kumasi. Although the writ is dated June 26, 2026, it was officially lodged on July 9.
Focus on Article 66(2)
The case centres on the interpretation of Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides that “a person shall not be elected to hold the office of President for more than two terms.”
Alhassan argues that the constitutional provision should be interpreted to prohibit only two consecutive terms in office. According to the writ, the Constitution does not expressly prevent a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms from contesting the presidency again. He is asking the Supreme Court to declare that any attempt to bar such a person from standing for election would be unconstitutional.
Legal Arguments Presented
Invoking the Constitution’s enforcement provisions, Alhassan is bringing the case in his capacity as a Ghanaian citizen.
His legal team relies on the Constitution’s Preamble and several constitutional provisions, including those governing presidential succession, particularly situations where a Vice President completes an unexpired presidential term. The lawyers contend that because the Constitution does not automatically treat a partial or interrupted presidential term as a lifetime disqualification from serving two full terms, the framers did not intend the two-term limit to operate as an absolute lifetime ban in cases where presidential service was not continuous.
Authorities Cited
The 34-page statement of case cites several landmark Supreme Court decisions, including:
Tuffuor v Attorney-General
New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General
Sam v Attorney-General
Nartey v Attorney-General
The filing also references Black’s Law Dictionary and argues that the Constitution should be interpreted according to both its letter and spirit, describing it as a living document that should be given a broad and purposive interpretation.
Case Now Before the Supreme Court
The writ directs the Attorney-General to file a statement of defence within 14 days after being served. At the time of filing, no writ number had been assigned. The matter is now before the Supreme Court of Ghana, which will determine the proper interpretation of Article 66(2).
Mahama’s Position
The legal challenge comes as President John Dramani Mahama serves a second presidential term that is separated by former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s eight-year tenure. Despite the ongoing constitutional debate, President Mahama has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of seeking a third term or amending the Constitution to make such a bid possible. He reaffirmed this position during a visit to Singapore in August 2025, stating that he had no plans to pursue another presidential term.
What the Supreme Court Will Decide
The Supreme Court’s ruling will not determine whether President Mahama will seek another term. Instead, it will clarify whether Ghana’s Constitution permits a president who has served two non-consecutive terms to contest the presidency again, or whether the two-term limit is an absolute lifetime restriction regardless of whether those terms were consecutive.
