Two people are seeking interpretation of Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution at the Supreme Court with separate suits.
They want clarification on the provision which states a person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms.
The suits, which were filed separately by Ganiwu Alhassan, a teacher of Kpandai in the Northern Region and Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie, Editor of the Daily Searchlight newspaper, are essentially asking the Supreme Court to determine whether or not the two-term limit in Article 66(2) bars only consecutive service, or bars a person outright once they have served two terms in any form.
Mr Alhassan is asking the court to declare that a person who has served two separate and distinct terms as President, as opposed to two consecutive terms, remains eligible to contest the presidency again.
Alhassan is saying that any attempt to stop such a person from running would breach the Constitution.
He pointed to the provision on a Vice-President who succeeds to the presidency under Article 60(6) and (7) as evidence that the two-term rule was never meant to be an absolute, one-size-fits-all prohibition.
Second suit
Meanwhile, Mr Kuranchie is asking the court for three linked declarations on the same constitutional provisions.
He wants the apex court to declare that the two-term limit in Article 66(2) only bars an election to the presidency upon completion of two consecutive four-year terms.
He is of the contention that a substantial break of at least one four-year electoral cycle resets the eligibility count entirely and that the bar in Article 66(2) is not triggered until a person has been elected to, and has actually served, two consecutive elected terms of four years each.
This is not the first time Mr Kuranchie has approached the apex court on this subject.
He previously filed a suit, representing himself, seeking to stop then former President John Dramani Mahama from contesting the 2024 general election.
That earlier writ was struck out by a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, after the court found it defective for failing to file a statement of case within the time allowed by the court’s rules.
The panel decided that the way the case was presented didn’t give the court the power to handle it.
The Attorney-General, cited as defendant in both actions, has 14 days from service to file a statement of defence in each case.
