The National Organiser of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Henry Nana Boakye, has accused former President John Mahama of adopting a “deceptive” posture regarding the constitutional interpretation of presidential term limits. Boakye stated that Mahama’s public comments on not seeking more than two terms conflict with his remarks on a pending Supreme Court case, which could establish a dangerous constitutional precedent.
Boakye’s criticism centers on the ongoing debate surrounding Article 66 of the 1992 Constitution. He argues that this provision, specifically Article 66(2), explicitly states that “a person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two times.” This wording, according to Boakye, leaves no room for interpretation based on consecutive or non-consecutive terms. He believes that any attempt to secure a different interpretation from the Supreme Court is politically motivated and designed to create a loophole.
This issue fits into Ghana’s broader political narrative concerning democratic stability and constitutional adherence. The country has a history of peaceful transitions of power, and the integrity of its constitutional provisions, particularly those governing presidential terms, is crucial for maintaining this stability. Debates over such fundamental aspects often reflect underlying political tensions and electoral strategies as the nation approaches future elections.
Speaking on Joy FM's Top Story on Tuesday, July 28, Mr. Boakye said, “The posturing of President Mahama is very deceptive. President Mahama is trying to say, ‘As for me, I think two terms, two terms. I do not intend to seek. But whoever is going to the Supreme Court, as for that, I do not control the Supreme Court. So whatever interpretation they will put on that, I don’t care.’” He further alleged that any application before the Supreme Court seeking a “twisted, unwholesome and unhealthy interpretation on Article 66 is sponsored.”
The implications of this debate are significant for Ghana’s political future. A Supreme Court ruling that deviates from the widely accepted interpretation of Article 66(2) could potentially alter the landscape of presidential eligibility. Such a decision could lead to increased political uncertainty and potentially undermine public trust in constitutional processes. Political analysts and citizens will closely watch the Supreme Court’s handling of this matter, as its outcome could have lasting effects on Ghana’s democratic framework.
Boakye rejected arguments that a president serving non-consecutive terms could still qualify to contest again, describing such reasoning as “weird” and “an absurdity.” He argued that accepting this interpretation would create a loophole, allowing an individual to alternate between serving in office and sitting out a term, potentially remaining eligible to return to power repeatedly. This, he warned, would undermine the intention of Ghana’s constitutional term limits and threaten the country’s democratic stability. Boakye cautioned that any Supreme Court ruling permitting such an interpretation could plunge Ghana into political turmoil, stating, “I will be very sad, and Ghana will be thrown into a state of turmoil if any strange interpretation is put on this article.”