The New Patriotic Party has gone to the Supreme Court seeking a definitive interpretation of Ghana’s presidential term limits, asking the court to settle whether the constitutional maximum of two terms applies whether those terms are consecutive or separated by time out of office.
The action names the Attorney-General as defendant. The NPP’s writ and statement of case are dated July 28, 2026, and the party is represented by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame of Dame & Partners. The case has been reported as New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General, suit number J1/27/2026.
At the heart of the case is Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that a person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms. Each presidential term lasts four years under Article 66(1).
NPP Wants Two Terms Interpreted as Absolute Limit
The party wants the Supreme Court to declare that the two-term ceiling applies regardless of whether a President serves continuously or leaves office and later returns.
It is asking for a ruling that no person may be elected President more than twice or serve more than two four-year terms, amounting to a maximum of eight years in elected presidential office.
The NPP argues that interpreting the Constitution as limiting only consecutive terms could open the door for a former President who served one term, left office and later returned to claim eligibility for two further terms.
“Plaintiff considers this proposition not only absurd but dangerous for the democracy, peace and stability of the nation,” the party states in its case.
It further argues that inserting the word “consecutive” into Article 66 would amount to altering the Constitution through judicial interpretation.
Vice-President Succession Also Raised
The suit goes beyond former Presidents returning to office.
The NPP is also seeking clarity on what happens when a Vice-President takes over the presidency and serves more than half of the unexpired term of a predecessor.
The party wants the court to declare that such a person would subsequently be eligible to contest for President only once.
It is similarly asking for confirmation that someone who has already completed one elected presidential term has only one term remaining, whether that second term follows immediately or comes after a break from office.
Debate Extends Beyond One Lawsuit
The case arrives amid a broader national discussion about presidential tenure and constitutional reform.
There are several other cases before the Supreme Court raising questions around Article 66. Citi News reported in August that the NPP action brought the number of pending presidential term limit cases against the Attorney-General to five.
The issue has also surfaced in the wider constitutional review process. Government has backed a proposal to extend a presidential term from four years to five, while the NPP has publicly opposed that proposal and called for retention of the existing four-year term.
In its Supreme Court case, however, the party’s immediate concern is not the length of each term but the maximum number of terms a person may serve.
The NPP has cited international examples, including the United States’ constitutional limit on presidential elections, as well as the 2011 Constitution Review Commission report, in support of its argument.
The final interpretation will rest with the Supreme Court, whose decision could settle a constitutional question that has increasingly moved from political debate into litigation.
READ ALSO: Ghana National Airline Task Force Nears Completion - Transport Minister
