New Patriotic Party (NPP) stalwart Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko has reacted to suits filed at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of a provision of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana on presidential term limits.
In a post shared on his social media handle on July 9, 2026, he rubbished the suggestion that Clause 2 of Article 66 of the Constitution means that presidents are allowed to serve two consecutive terms but can serve more than two if the terms are not consecutive.
He argued that, if that is the case, then the current president, John Dramani Mahama, could remain in office for years after his second term.
“So let me get this straight about the case before the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation that when the Constitution says a President shall serve only two terms of office, it really means only two consecutive terms.
“If that argument succeeds, then the current President, after completing this second term, could contest again in 2028, if he changes his expressed mind and so chooses. If he loses, he could return in 2032. If he wins in 2032, he could contest again in 2036 because, according to this theory, he still would not have served two consecutive terms. If he then loses in 2036, why stop there? He could run again in 2040, and if he wins, he could still seek another term in 2044 because only then would he have completed two back-to-back terms,” he contended.
Ken Kuranchie drags AG to Supreme Court, argues President is eligible for a third term
Gabby, an astute lawyer, further indicated that there is no ambiguity in the provision of the Constitution on presidential term limits.
He added that any other interpretation would amount to rewriting the Constitution rather than interpreting it.
“In other words, under this interpretation, the Constitution’s two-term limit magically resets every time a President loses a re-election attempt. That is not interpreting the Constitution. It is rewriting it.
“The Constitution says a President shall not hold office for more than two terms. It does not say two consecutive terms. Had the framers intended that qualification, they knew exactly how to say so. They didn’t. Asking the Supreme Court to read into the Constitution a word its framers deliberately omitted is not constitutional interpretation; it is constitutional amendment by judicial decree,” he added.
Read his full write-up below:
So let me get this straight about the case before the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation that when the Constitution says a President shall serve only two terms of office, it really means only two consecutive terms.
If that argument succeeds, then the current President,… pic.twitter.com/HRBMMmgnF0
— Gabby Otchere-Darko (@GabbyDarko) July 9, 2026
BAI
The untold story of ‘Surviving Biafra’
