Inusah Fuseini urges Mahama to reject 3rd term bid even if Supreme Court allows it

Former Tamale Central Member of Parliament Inusah Fuseini contends that the New Patriotic Party's (NPP) pursuit of a Supreme Court ruling on Ghana's presidential term limit is unnecessary, arguing that the 1992 Constitution already makes this clear. According to Fuseini, Article 66(2) of the Constitution explicitly restricts an individual to a maximum of two presidential terms, without differentiating between consecutive or non-consecutive terms.

This view is rooted in the belief that the purpose of the constitutional provision is to limit the number of times an individual can be elected President, rather than to dictate the duration of time one must serve before becoming eligible for re-election.

The lawyer emphasizes that the relevant constitutional provision is focused on the frequency of elections, not the length of breaks between terms. In an interview on Channel One TV, Fuseini advocated for a shift in focus from individual constraints to the election process itself. He highlighted a distinction between the presidency and Parliament, noting that MPs can run for re-election without facing constitutional limitations, a situation he linked to the lack of restrictions on re-election for Members of Parliament.

Fuseini underscores his personal experience as a legislator, having served more than four terms, which he attributes to the absence of constitutional limits on the number of times an MP can be re-elected. He references Article 66(1) of the Constitution, which sets the presidential term at four years, and Article 66(2), which prohibits more than two terms.

Fuseini finds little room for alternative interpretations within the wording of Article 66(2), stating that it clearly sets a cap on the number of presidential elections without differentiating between consecutive or non-consecutive terms.

Regarding the NPP's decision to involve the Supreme Court, Fuseini argues that such a move is inappropriate, as the court should not be called upon to make judgments on hypothetical scenarios. He contends that the Supreme Court lacks speculative jurisdiction and cannot predict future actions. Additionally, Fuseini expresses concerns about the allocation of public resources to adjudicate a case based on a purely hypothetical situation, advocating for the presence of an actual constitutional issue that necessitates judicial determination.