Keypoints:
- NPP rejects five-year presidential terms
- Two terms could mean 10 years
- Article 66 court cases remain separate
GHANA’S opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has rejected a proposal to extend presidential terms from four to five years, opening a new front in the country’s widening debate over constitutional reform and presidential tenure.
The party wants Ghana to retain its existing four-year presidential mandate, arguing that regular elections give voters more frequent opportunities to hold governments accountable. Its position puts it at odds with President John Dramani Mahama’s government, which has accepted a Constitutional Review Committee recommendation for five-year presidential and parliamentary terms.
The disagreement comes as Ghana confronts a separate constitutional controversy over Article 66(2), which limits a person to two terms as president. Five Article 66 cases are pending before the Supreme Court, including an action filed by the NPP.
NPP draws line on five-year terms
The position was approved by the NPP’s National Council on September 10 and formally presented at a press conference on September 17 as part of the party’s response to the constitutional review process.
Speaking at the press conference, Gushegu MP Sulemana Tampuli Alhassan said the party disagreed with the government and Constitutional Review Committee over extending presidential terms.
Tampuli argued that longer presidential terms would reduce the frequency with which voters can hold governments electorally accountable.
The NPP’s intervention adds another influential voice against the proposal. The Trades Union Congress has also opposed extending presidential terms to five years, arguing that voters could be required to live with an unpopular or poorly performing administration for an additional year.
Government backs longer mandate
The government has taken a different position.
Attorney-General Dominic Ayine announced that the administration had accepted the proposal for five-year presidential and parliamentary terms, with supporters of the change arguing that Ghana’s four-year electoral cycle leaves governments with limited time to formulate, implement and assess major policies.
The proposal emerged from the Constitutional Review Committee chaired by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh. Africa Briefing previously examined the proposed five-year presidential term and the argument that Ghana’s current system contributes to an almost continuous election cycle.
The mathematical consequence is straightforward but politically significant.
Under the existing system, a president who wins two elections can serve for a maximum of eight years. If individual terms were extended to five years while the two-term ceiling remained unchanged, that maximum would become 10 years.
A five-year term would not, by itself, remove the constitutional ceiling of two presidential terms.
Article 66 fight is different
That distinction is particularly important because the debate over the length of presidential mandates is unfolding alongside Supreme Court litigation over Article 66.
The pending cases raise questions surrounding the interpretation and application of Article 66’s two-term restriction, although the precise reliefs and arguments differ between the actions.
At least one documented action specifically asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a person who has served two non-consecutive presidential terms remains eligible to contest for the presidency again.
The five-year proposal, by contrast, concerns how long each individual presidential mandate should last.
The NPP’s presence among the Article 66 litigants should therefore not be presented as inconsistent with its opposition to five-year terms. The two controversies concern separate constitutional questions.
President Mahama has meanwhile maintained that voters gave him ‘one additional term’ when they returned him to office and has publicly said his understanding of the constitutional provision governing presidential tenure is clear.
The NDC has also previously rejected suggestions that Ghana’s presidential term limit should be changed. Africa Briefing reported the governing party’s rejection of a presidential term-limit change amid earlier speculation over Mahama’s eligibility for another run.
Constitutional battle widens
The NPP’s intervention means Ghana’s government and main opposition party now openly disagree over a major element of the constitutional reform programme.
But extending presidential terms would require more than political agreement in Parliament.
Article 66 sits within Chapter Eight of the Constitution, which Article 290 identifies as entrenched. Changes to entrenched provisions must ultimately satisfy the constitutional referendum requirements rather than being determined by parliamentary numbers alone.
President Mahama has announced plans for a referendum on proposed amendments to entrenched provisions alongside the 2027 District Assembly Elections.
The wider implementation process is also under way following Attorney-General Ayine’s inauguration of an 11-member Constitution Review Implementation Committee chaired by Presidential Legal Counsel Marietta Agyeiwaa Brew.
The five-year proposal therefore remains part of a broader constitutional process rather than an enacted change.
Meanwhile, the next decisive development in the separate Article 66 litigation will come through an authoritative Supreme Court hearing notice, procedural direction or ruling.
Together, the disputes are forcing Ghana to confront two distinct questions about presidential power: how long should each mandate last, and how should the Constitution’s limit on the number of presidential terms be interpreted?
Related stories
Ghana term-limit row widens beyond court
