The Supreme Court has ordered the Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Searchlight Newspaper, Kenneth Kuranchie, to amend two of his reliefs in an action that he is seeking to disqualify former President John Dramani Mahama from contesting the 2024 presidential elections.

The writ, which was similar to an earlier one dismissed by the apex court in November 2023, challenges the eligibility of John Dramani Mahama to seek re-election in the 2024 polls.

Among the reliefs, Mr. Kuranchie, who is also a private legal practitioner, is seeking a declaration that, upon the true and proper interpretation of Article 66(1) of the 1992 Constitution, clearly stipulates the number of years of a presidential term to be four years.

In court on Wednesday, May 8, the plaintiff sought leave from the court to expand two of his reliefs by adding some constitutional provisions to them.

The request was not opposed by the respondents, Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, Counsel for John Mahama, Tony Lithur, and Lawyer for the Speaker of Parliament, Thaddeus Sory.

EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent Murtala Inusah reported that the panel chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo with Justices Mariama Owusu, Avril Lovelace-Johnson, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Samuel Asiedu, Ernest Gaewu, and Yaw Darko Asare has ordered him to amend by May 10, 2024.

On Wednesday, Mr. Kuranchie, who represented himself, said he wants to expand the first two of his main reliefs, seeking to disqualify the former president from contesting.

The reliefs he sought leave to expand are: “A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution, a person seeking a second presidential term must be a sitting president."

And "a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution, a second presidential term must be consecutive to the first term."

The writ named the AG, former President John Agyekum Kufuor, former President John Dramani Mahama, and the Parliament of Ghana as the 1st to 4th respondents, respectively.

Reliefs sought:

The plaintiff is asking the apex court for the following reliefs:

A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution, a person seeking a second presidential term must be a sitting president.

A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 66(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution, a second presidential term must be consecutive to the first term.

A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Article 68(2) of the 1992 Constitution, a former President of Ghana falls under the supervision and control of the Parliament of Ghana in all his/her future offices.

A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 68(2) of the 1992 Constitution, a former President of Ghana requires parliamentary approval before he can occupy any office other than an Office of State.

A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 68(2) of the 1992 Constitution, a former President of Ghana requires parliamentary approval before he can occupy any other office that provides emolument.

A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Article 68(3) of the 1992 Constitution, the Office of President is an office that provides emoluments.

In a declaration that is based on a true and proper interpretation of Article 68 (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9), a former President of Ghana remains in the employ of the state.

A declaration that, on a true and proper construction of Article 62 of the 1992 Constitution, a former President of Ghana is not qualified/eligible to seek election as President of Ghana.

A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of Article 68(2) and 290(1)(f) of the 1992 Constitution, the Parliament of Ghana has a mandatory duty to comply with the stipulations of Article 68(2) in so far as all former Presidents of Ghana are concerned.

An order directed at the 4th Defendant to invoke and operationalize Article 68(2) of the 1992 Constitution.

An order was directed to the 2nd and 3rd defendants to compel them to make available to Parliament all engagements, offices, employments, and appointments subsequent to leaving office as President.

An order directed the third defendant to fully disclose to parliament the terms of his engagement as the flag bearer of a political party.

An order directed at the 3rd defendant to seek parliamentary approval for his engagement as a flagbearer of a political party; or, in the alternative, an order directed at the 3rd defendant to desist from his presidential ambitions.

Any other order or orders that the Honourable Court may deem fit to grant.