Supreme Court won’t settle a debate through constitutional interpretation – Kwaku Azar on NPP presidential term limit suit
Legal scholar Kwaku Azar Asare has raised a question about the nature of the New Patriotic Party’s case before the Supreme Court. The party has filed a petition asking the court to interpret Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which sets a four‑year presidential term and limits an individual to two terms. The NPP seeks a declaration that the two‑term restriction applies regardless of whether the terms are served consecutively or non‑consecutively. Azar suggests the suit may not present a concrete dispute that can be resolved by the judiciary, but could instead be an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion. The issue has drawn public attention to how the Constitution will be applied to future presidential elections. Observers note that the timing of the case could influence the political debate surrounding term limits.
Legal scholar Kwaku Azar Asare has questioned whether the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) suit at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of the presidential term limit presents a justiciable constitutional dispute or amounts to a request for an advisory opinion. The NPP has filed a suit at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides for a presidential term of four years and limits a person to two terms in office. The party is seeking a declaration that the two-term limit applies whether the terms are consecutive or non-consecutive. The action has drawn attention to the constitutional implications of presidential term limits ahead of the 2028 general election. However, the filing of the suit does not, in itself, establish that President John Dramani Mahama intends to seek another term.