Despite President John Mahama publicly rejecting calls for a third term, some elements within the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) are pursuing a legal challenge to overturn the constitutional two-term limit.

One Ganiyu Alhassan, a resident of Kpandai in the Northern Region, reportedly backed by some Mahama loyalists, has filed a writ at the Supreme Court seeking a third term for a President who has already served two terms.

In his suit, Alhassan is asking the apex court to declare that a person who has served two separate, non-consecutive terms as President is eligible to contest again - a direct challenge to Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution.

Article 66(2) states: "A person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms."

But in his statement of claim, Alhassan argues for a different interpretation: "that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, a person who has served two separate and distinct terms of office, as opposed to two consecutive terms, is eligible to contest the presidency," adding that "any attempt to prevent such a person is inconsistent with and in contravention of the 1992 Constitution."

The sole defendant named in the writ is the Attorney General, who is expected to file a statement of defence either upholding Article 66(2) or supporting the plaintiff’s position.

NDC leadership pushes back

The suit has drawn strong condemnation from senior NDC figures who insist the party will not undermine the Constitution.

A senior party executive described the push as "utter nonsense" and called on those behind it to stop.

"I urge those who think they are being more loyal to President Mahama to stop this. Any attempt to change the constitutional order will be vigorously resisted. The Constitution is as clear as daylight," he said.

NDC National Chairman, Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, has also distanced the party from the agenda.

In an August 2025 interview with Channel One TV, he said that "we have never run our party in ways that conflict with the national constitution, and we don’t intend to do that. We will stick by the tenets of the Constitution."

All eyes are now on the Attorney General, whether his statement of defence will uphold Article 66 (2) of the Constitution or support the plaintiff's pro-Mahama relief.

Read the document below: