The substance and intent of the action filed as Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie v The Attorney-General in the Supreme Court as Suit No. J1/20/2021, on 30 June 2026 at 1:30 in the afternoon allegedly for the interpretation of Article 66 (2) of the 1992 Constitution on whether a person who has been elected to the Office of President of Ghana, has served one term in office and is defeated at the next election is entitled upon his subsequent election to the Office of the President to serve two consecutive terms, is to seek a third term in Office for President Mahama who was sworn in again as President on 7 January 2025.

The attempt by the plaintiff, Mr. Kuranchie, in an interview on Joy News’ PM Express with Evan Mensah to dispel the credible perception that he brought the action as a camouflage to “seeking a third term for President Mahama” is a hard sell by him. Mr. Kuranchie is reported to have stated that: “I’ve heard arguments about a third term. We are not seeking a third term for President Mahama. That is not about what we are doing.” But that is precisely the substance of his action in the Supreme Court which opens the floodgate for President John Mahama and other successors to seek a third term in office as President.

The only person who was a President of Ghana and lost an election for a second consecutive four-year term in office as President is John Dramani Mahama when he was defeated in the 7 December 2016 presidential elections by former President Nana Akufo-Addo on grounds of perceived pervasive corruption in his government. John Mahama is the only former President under the 1992 Constitution to return to office after the eight-year term of his successor who had truncated his ability to accomplish a second continuous four-year term in office as President. John Dramani Mahama also won his second four-year term on 7 December 2024 on grounds of perceived pervasive corruption in the government of former President Nana Akufo-Addo under which the contesting candidate of the NPP was Mahamudu Bawumia who served as the Vice-President to the Akufo-Addo governments.

Mr. Kuranchie does not mention President Mahama’s name or the history of his tenure as President of Ghana, but it is trite in conflict studies and analysis that every reasonable interacting social being approaches and interprets social phenomena with the background knowledge of lived social, political, economic, cultural, religious, and other experiences which ground history for purposes of making meaning from social facts. The attempt by Mr. Kuranchie and others in similar positions to disaggregate their actions from the perception that their actions are intended to clear the stables for President John Dramani Mahama to have another ride as President of Ghana for a third term partakes of the behaviour of the ostrich and treats the electorate as unreasonable beings.

The plaintiff in Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie v The Attorney-General anchors his action on the Term of Office of the President which states as follows:

Term of Office of President

1. A person elected as President shall, subject to clause (3) of this article, hold office for a term of four years beginning from the date on which he is sworn in as President.

2. A person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms.

3. (The office of the President shall become vacant –

   1. on the expiration of the period specified in clause (1) of this article; or

   2. if the incumbent dies or resigns from office or ceases to hold office under article 99 of the Constitution.

4. The President may, by writing signed by him, and addressed to the Speaker of Parliament, resign from office as President.

The meaning of the whole of Article 66 as quoted in full above, read within the context of the entrenched Chapter Eight (8) of the Constitution, is clear and unambiguous: clause 2 on which the plaintiff depends contains no contending meaning when it mandates that: “A President shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms.”

The plaintiff, however, distorts the plain words of Article 66 (2) of the Constitution dealing with the term of office of an elected president by contrasting it with the Terms of District Assembly under Article 246, particularly clause 3 thereof where it is provided that a District Chief Executive (DCE) whose tenure has not been vacated as a result of a vote of no confidence by the Assembly, removal from office by the President or has resigned or died, shall be four years; and “shall not hold office as a District Chief Executive for more than two consecutive terms.” The use of an unentrenched provision on the tenure of office of a Presidential appointee, such as the DCE, to argue on the entrenched tenure of the elected President is like comparing apples with oranges except for Mr. Kuranchie and his ilk.

The plaintiff’s reliefs also obtusely refer to Articles 1 (1) and 35 (1) of the Constitution vesting sovereignty in the people and Article 42 thereof which gives to every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years and above, and of sound mind, the right to vote and to be registered as a voter for purposes of public elections and referenda. Clearly Articles 1 (1), 35 (1), and 42 of the Constitution have no bearing upon the meaning of Article 66 (2) of the 1992 Constitution, just as Article 246 (2) which deals with the unelected office of the DCE has nothing to do with the entrenched elected office of the President under Article 66 thereof.

The plaintiff, however, strings the provisions of Articles 1 (1), 35 (1), 42, 66, and 246 (2) of the Constitution together in each of the reliefs he seeks from the Supreme Court as endorsed on his Writ and Statement of Case as follows:

1. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35(1) and 42 of the 1992 Constitution the two-term presidential limit in Article 66(2) is properly construed as a prohibition to an election to the office of the President of Ghana only upon the completion of two consecutive terms of four years each.

2. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 66(2), 1(1), 35, and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, a substantial break of one four-year electoral cycle of the electoral presidential service resets the eligibility count.

3. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 66(2), 246(2), 1(1), 35, and 42 of the 1992 Constitution, the prohibition in Article 66(2) is not engaged until a person has been elected to and served two consecutive elected terms of four years each.

4. Such further or other orders, declarations, and directions as this Honourable Court may consider appropriate for giving effect, or enabling effect to be given, to the declarations and orders so made, pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution, 1992.

The plaintiff has been unable to demonstrate in his action before the Supreme Court that there is an adversary in the action or a controversy in his action contending a rival interpretation or an ambiguity in the meaning of Article 66 including clause (2) thereof of the Constitution.

I agree with all the constitutional defence advocates who have spoken and written that the plaintiff’s action is seeking an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court for which the Court has no jurisdiction under Articles 2 and 130 of the 1992 Constitution.

After an action brought against the Government of Ghana in the Supreme Court which was ripe for hearing was summarily dismissed without hearing me who appeared as the Deputy Attorney-General, I pleaded with the Judicial Secretary to accompany me to see the Chief Justice. I told the Chief Justice that I was worried the plaintiff had been deprived of a fair hearing and that if the Court had heard me the Court might have decided the case on the merits. The Chief Justice told me that what I thought did not matter and that even if the Court was wrong in the manner it dismissed the plaintiff’s case, the decision of the Court was the law until a future Supreme Court overruled that decision. I tried to persuade the late Akoto Ampaw who appeared for Nana Akufo-Addo who was on record as counsel for the Plaintiff to apply for a review but he declined to do so. The abuse of judicial power stayed with me.

Consequently, despite the general understanding that the words of Article 66 of the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, there is no guarantee that the decision of the Courts will always decide constitutional matters based solely upon the taught traditions of the law. The manner in which a number of former Chief Justices presided over the judiciary and gave citizens the perception that the courts had become extensions of the executive power on issues of constitutional adjudication must be a reminder to constitutional defence advocates to be on their guard on actions such as the multitude of actions on the presidential tenure which have surfaced since the assumption of office of President John Mahama for a second term.

Former Chief Justice Torkornoo became the first Chief Justice in Ghana to be impeached and removed from office before her actions challenging the petitions against her removal were decided by the Supreme Court overseen by her successor who had less than a year to retirement and was nominated and appointed in her place as Chief Justice. The Supreme Court has seen a number of recent appointments reminiscent of the court-packing days of the Akufo-Addo government. History, however, vouches for the fact that there are judges who rise above gratitude to the appointing authority to do justice no matter whose ass is gored and I am hopeful that Ghana still has such lawyers of integrity turned superior court justices.

The defendant to Mr. Kuranchie’s action in the Supreme Court under discussion is the Attorney-General who is an appointee of the President, the ultimate beneficiary of a decision in favour of the plaintiff. The partisan pleading in the action in the case of Adamtey v Attorney-General pending in the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Office of the Special Prosecutor in which the Attorney-General agreed with the plaintiff in that case is a harbinger of what to expect in Mr. Kuranchie’s case before the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court finally decides is the law until overturned by a future Supreme Court. It does not matter what contrary view is held by the sovereign people about the injustice of a decision that usurps their entrenched electoral right to make the decision. This attitude has destroyed many African democracies and led citizens to seek extra-legal means of redressing grievances. Article 3 of the Constitution remains the only armour of citizens.

A decision in the pending case of Kuranchie v The Attorney-General which Mr. Kuranchie has chosen to try also in the court of public opinion through interviews in the media may undermine the democratic norms encompassed under the 1992 Constitution. Should the Supreme Court agree with the axioms presented before the Court as meeting the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court and proceed to amend the entrenched provision of Article 66 (2) by reading into it the words “two consecutive terms” it will be legalizing an automatic two consecutive terms for every President from the date of the decision.

President Mahama will qualify to contest the 7 December 2028 elections and the decision of the Supreme Court would constitute a disincentive for any political party to field or to seriously campaign for a candidate against him. The disincentive will be that should President Mahama be defeated again, he will be entitled to contest again in 2032 and seek two consecutive terms in office. He may do so ad infinitum. Article 66 (2) was intended to prevent such democratic confusion with the clarity of its wording, and entrenchment of the provision to prevent the only anti-majoritarian branch of government from usurping the sovereign will of the people to decide the issue only at a national referendum.

Kenneth Kwabena Agyei Kuranchie has a constitutional right to bring an action before the Supreme Court for interpretation and enforcement of the 1992 Constitution and to confine himself to advocating his constitutional rights before the Court as the plaintiff in the case. Mr. Kuranchie has, however, decided to argue his case in the court of public opinion through the media, instead of limiting himself to the courtroom as required by the ethics of lawyers.

The interview of Mr. Kuranchie on Joy News’ PM Express with Evan Mensah to dispel the credible perception that he brought the action as a camouflage to “seeking a third term for President Mahama” is a hard sell by him as I have demonstrated in the foregoing discourse.

The substance and intent of the action Mr. Kuranchie filed in the case of Kuranchie v The Attorney-General in the Supreme Court as Suit No. J1/20/2021, on 30 June 2026 at 1:30 in the afternoon allegedly for the interpretation of Article 66 (2) of the 1992 Constitution seeks a third term in Office for President Mahama who was sworn in again as President on 7 January 2025.

The substance of Mr. Kuranchie’s action in the Supreme Court denudes the sovereignty of the people under Articles 1 (1), 35(2) and 42 of the 1992 Constitution for the question of the entrenched provision of Article 66 (2) to be decided by the sovereign electorate at a referendum under Article 290 of the Constitution by soliciting the Supreme Court to usurp the expression of the will of the people at a national referendum with the substitution of a judicial decision contrary to the clear dictates of the 1992 Constitution. We the People can never be deceived by subterfuges!

Martin A. B. K. Amidu