Legal practitioner and policy analyst Austin Kwabena Brako-Powers has urged Ghana’s Supreme Court to dismiss a writ filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) over presidential term limits, describing it as premature, unnecessary and based on a hypothetical dispute.
Responding to the action on Thursday, October 29, 2026, Mr Brako-Powers said there was no current constitutional controversy requiring judicial intervention. He argued that the NPP was asking the court to rule on a possible future situation rather than determine an existing legal dispute.
He referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilson v Attorney-General, which stressed that constitutional interpretation must emerge from a justiciable dispute. He also cited New Patriotic Party v National Democratic Congress and Others in support of the principle that an intention or future possibility, by itself, may not amount to an actionable constitutional wrong.
According to Mr Brako-Powers, Article 66(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution sets out presidential tenure and the two-term limit clearly. He said the provisions contain no uncertainty that requires clarification by the court.
His position was also supported, he said, by the reasoning in Republic v Special Tribunal; Ex parte Akosah and Agyei-Twum v Attorney-General; Ex parte Dr Zenator, both of which address the circumstances in which constitutional interpretation is required.
Mr Brako-Powers said a political party could not create an interpretative dispute merely because it wanted certainty about a possible future election. The Supreme Court, he argued, should not be asked to explain provisions whose meaning was already clear from the constitutional text.
The NPP’s writ centres on Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which prevents a person from being elected President for more than two terms. The party is seeking declarations on how that restriction should operate in circumstances where presidential service is interrupted.
One issue raised concerns a Vice-President who assumes the presidency and later seeks election to the office. The NPP reportedly wants the court to determine whether serving more than half of a predecessor’s unexpired term should be treated as one full term when assessing eligibility for future presidential elections.
Mr Brako-Powers also challenged any attempt to apply the United States’ approach to presidential succession in Ghana. The Twenty-Second Amendment to the US Constitution expressly provides for the counting of certain periods served after succession, but Ghana’s Constitution contains no equivalent formula.
He said the meaning of Ghana’s presidential term limits must instead be determined from Ghana’s own constitutional language and structure, rather than from a rule developed under a different constitutional system.
He warned that allowing claims about possible future candidacies could encourage political parties to ask courts to decide hypothetical electoral disputes before any relevant action or decision had taken place.
On that basis, Mr Brako-Powers said the Supreme Court should reject the NPP’s writ as premature and unnecessary, rather than issue what he regarded as an advisory opinion on provisions that are already unambiguous.
