Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the University of Ghana, Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, has argued that the two separate petitions filed at the Supreme Court to interpret Ghana’s presidential term limits do not require the court’s attention because the law is clear on the subject.

According to him, the constitutional provision on presidential terms does not require further interpretation, as serving two terms, whether consecutive or separated by a break, brings a person’s opportunity to serve as President to an end.

In an interview on JoyNews monitored by GhanaWeb on July 28, 2026, he explained that the law is clear on presidential term limits.

What new poll says about calls for a third term for Mahama

“Regarding the subject matter, in my opinion, I think that it is a case that doesn’t need interpretation by the Supreme Court.

“The matter is clear, the law is clear, and the Supreme Court has asserted the point that if the law is in black and white...then there’s no need for interpretation,” he stated.

Prof Appiagyei-Atua said a person who serves one presidential term, leaves office, and later returns to serve another term would have exhausted the constitutional limit.

“So, if you serve one term and you come back to serve another term, that brings your opportunity to serve as president to an end,” he explained.

Two individuals, Ganiwu Alhassan and Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie, have filed separate suits at the Supreme Court to interpret presidential term limits.

Meanwhile, President John Dramani Mahama has publicly ruled out seeking a third term, emphasizing that his current mandate is restricted to one final term under Ghana's constitution.

JKB/VPO

Watch as court takes over Cheddar’s prime property on Osu Oxford street