You Took Your Matter There. If It Doesn’t Go Your Way, Don’t Blame Mahama – A Plus Reacts to NPP

In an Official Facebook Post by A Plus on 28 October 2026, the Ghanaian politician and social commentator reacted to a report that the New Patriotic Party (NPP) had headed to the Supreme Court over the interpretation of the presidential term limit. Sharing an image carrying the headline, “NPP heads to Supreme Court over interpretation of presidential term limit,” A Plus suggested that the party should accept the outcome of its own legal action rather than blame President John Dramani Mahama if the court’s decision does not favour its position.

In his brief but pointed commentary, A Plus wrote: “The court is sitting at ‘it’s somewhere.’ The court has not called you. You took your matter there. If it doesn’t go your way don’t blame John Dramani Mahama. Yooooh!”

The statement reflects A Plus’s reaction to the NPP’s reported decision to seek judicial interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing presidential term limits. His message centres on the distinction between taking a matter to court and attributing responsibility to the President for whatever outcome the judicial process produces.

By saying, “You took your matter there,” A Plus emphasised that the decision to pursue legal clarification was the party’s own choice. He appeared to suggest that the NPP should allow the courts to examine the matter and deliver their decision without automatically interpreting an unfavourable outcome as the result of political interference.

His reference to the court sitting “at ‘it’s somewhere’” adds a sarcastic tone to the post. Although the phrase is not explained in the statement, it appears to be part of his mocking commentary on the political and legal developments surrounding the case.

A Plus’s remarks also bring attention to the wider relationship between political parties, the executive and the judiciary. In a constitutional democracy, political parties and individuals have the right to seek judicial interpretation when they believe a constitutional provision requires clarification. Equally, the courts are expected to determine such matters according to the law and the arguments presented before them.

The constitutional provisions on presidential term limits are particularly significant because they define the conditions under which an individual may occupy Ghana’s highest political office. Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution provides that a person shall not be elected President of Ghana for more than two terms. Questions about the interpretation or application of constitutional provisions are matters for the appropriate judicial process to resolve.

However, the exact legal questions raised by the NPP, the reliefs it is seeking and the arguments supporting its position would need to be examined before the substance of the case could be assessed. The image shared by A Plus announces the reported court action but does not provide the details of the legal application.

A Plus’s post was directed particularly at the possibility of political blame following the court’s eventual decision. By mentioning President John Dramani Mahama, he appeared to caution the NPP against holding the President responsible if the court rules against the party’s position.

The President and the judiciary have distinct constitutional roles. While the President heads the executive arm of government, the courts exercise judicial authority and are responsible for interpreting and applying the law in cases brought before them. An unfavourable judicial decision does not, by itself, establish that the executive influenced the outcome.

For political parties, resorting to the courts can provide a lawful means of resolving disputes and obtaining clarity on constitutional questions. The credibility of that process, however, also depends on the willingness of political actors to respect judicial independence and accept decisions in accordance with the law.

A Plus’s intervention therefore adds a political commentary to the reported legal development, urging the NPP to take responsibility for its decision to pursue the matter and avoid directing blame at Mahama simply because the outcome may not meet its expectations.

Ultimately, his message is that the court should be allowed to determine the matter independently. The legal arguments, the constitutional provisions and the eventual ruling—not political speculation about who should be blamed—will be central to resolving the issue.

Source: A Plus, Official Facebook Post, 28 October 2026.

Lawrinda feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com