Member of Parliament for Akim Swedru, Kennedy Osei Nyarko
Member of Parliament for Akim Swedru, Kennedy Osei Nyarko, has argued that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Ghana’s presidential term limits will not make any former or sitting president eligible for an additional term in office.
In a Facebook post, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) lawmaker maintained that the 1992 Constitution is clear on the presidential term limit and cannot be changed through a court interpretation.
According to him, regardless of the outcome of the case currently before the Supreme Court, the constitutional provision governing presidential tenure remains unchanged.
“The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the presidential term limits, whether in favor or against the proponents, will not automatically qualify any sitting president who is done with their term to be eligible for another term,” he wrote.
Osei Nyarko further stated that only a constitutional amendment through a national referendum can alter Article 66 of the Constitution.
He stressed that Parliament, acting alone, does not have the authority to amend the presidential term limit.
“The Constitution is unambiguous on the term limit of any president. Not even Parliament on their own can alter the presidential term without a referendum,” he stated.
The MP also described the legal action seeking the Supreme Court’s interpretation as “an exercise in futility,” arguing that the apex court does not possess the power to amend or alter Article 66 of the 1992 Constitution.
“Even though it’s the constitutional right of those who have taken the issue to the Supreme Court for interpretation, they are just embarking on an exercise in futility since the Supreme Court itself knows they don’t have the powers to amend or otherwise alter any part of Article 66 of the 1992 Constitution,” he added.
Concluding his remarks, the Akim Swedru legislator said the constitutional position on presidential term limits should be clear to anyone familiar with Ghana’s constitutional framework.
“This is just common sense which should not elude any reasonable human being who understands the architecture of our Constitution.”
