A heated debate has erupted in Ghana over the potential for President John Dramani Mahama to seek a third term in office, sparking concerns about the country’s constitutional limits. Former National Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Freddie Blay, has sparked controversy by stating that he would not object if the Supreme Court were to interpret the Constitution in a way that allows President Mahama to contest for a third term.
Article 66(1) of the 1992 Constitution clearly states that a person elected as President shall not serve more than two terms in office. However, some Ghanaians believe that President Mahama may attempt to amend the Constitution to bypass this limit.
Freddie Blay’s comments have been met with strong opposition from other Ghanaians, who argue that the Constitution is clear and should not be subject to interpretation. “Two terms means two terms!” is a common refrain among those who oppose any attempts to extend the presidential term limit.
The Minority Leader of Parliament, Afenyo-Markin, has alleged that President Mahama’s recent nomination of seven justices to the Supreme Court is part of a broader strategy to pave the way for his return to power beyond the constitutional limit. This claim has added fuel to the debate, with many calling for caution and respect for the Constitution.
As the debate continues, Ghanaians are left wondering about the potential implications of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Will the Court uphold the clear language of Article 66(1), or will it open the door to a third term for President Mahama? Only time will tell. Alexander Afriyie, ghanatalk.com, ghanacrimereport.com