The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has petitioned the Supreme Court to interpret constitutional provisions on presidential term limits, seeking a determination of whether President John Dramani Mahama can contest the 2028 presidential election.

The suit, filed on July 28, 2026, by the party’s solicitor, Godfred Yeboah Dame of Dame & Partners, names the Attorney-General as the defendant.

The NPP is asking the apex court to clarify whether the constitutional limit of two presidential terms applies to a person’s total time in office, regardless of whether the terms are consecutive or separated by a period out of office.

In its statement of case, the party is seeking interpretations of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, which relate to presidential authority and tenure.

Among the reliefs sought, the party wants the court to declare that no individual may be elected President more than twice or occupy the office for more than two four-year terms, amounting to a maximum of eight years.

It argues that the constitutional restriction should apply to both consecutive and non-consecutive terms, rather than allowing a former President who returns to office after an interruption to serve additional terms beyond the eight-year limit.

The case also raises questions about the eligibility of a Vice-President who assumes the presidency and serves for more than half of a predecessor’s remaining tenure.

The NPP is asking the court to declare that a person who assumes the presidency under those circumstances would be eligible to contest a presidential election for only one additional term.

The party is further seeking clarification on whether a person who has already completed one presidential term can serve only one more term, irrespective of whether the two periods in office follow one another.

The legal action comes amid public debate over the interpretation of the constitutional phrase limiting a President to two terms and whether the restriction applies only to consecutive periods in office or to the total number of terms served.

The NPP contends that interpreting the provision as permitting only two consecutive terms could allow a person who has served one term, lost an immediate re-election bid and subsequently returned to the presidency to serve two additional terms.

According to the party, such an interpretation would undermine constitutional safeguards intended to limit presidential tenure and protect the country’s democratic system.

“Plaintiff considers this proposition not only absurd but dangerous for the democracy, peace and stability of the nation,” the statement of case reads.

The party also argues that an interpretation permitting more than two presidential terms would effectively introduce wording into the Constitution that was not included by its framers.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation is expected to provide clarity on the constitutional limits governing presidential tenure and the eligibility of individuals seeking to contest future presidential elections.