Private legal practitioner Ken Kuranchie says the 1992 Constitution contains a “genuine ambiguity” on presidential term limits.

He argues that the Supreme Court must clarify whether a president who leaves office after one term can return for another term.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Mr Kuranchie explained that his legal challenge is based on his interpretation that Ghana’s presidency is consecutive and that eligibility resets when a person leaves office after serving one term.

He said his action before the Supreme Court is not seeking to secure a third term for President John Mahama but is instead asking the court to clarify the constitutional position on presidential terms.

“We are in the Supreme Court asking for what we believe is one of the most important political issues in our democracy.

"Whether the presidency is consecutive or not, if it is consecutive, then what it says clearly is that the person related to the office of president shall serve two terms, or shall serve for two terms.”

Mr Kuranchie argued that Article 66(2) of the 1992 Constitution must be interpreted alongside other relevant provisions of the Constitution rather than being read in isolation.

He said the Constitution must be considered as a whole, including its history and background.

“The 1992 Constitution is a document that is too generous. It is, it is, it is a big document. Okay, and it is to be read as a whole.”

According to him, the legal argument is that a person elected as president can serve two terms, and if that person leaves office after serving only one term, the eligibility requirement is reset.

“We are saying that the presidency is consecutive. If you recall, around 2023, I took a similar route to the Supreme Court.

"Unfortunately, that matter is still hanging in the Supreme Court. It has not been resolved, and it is a similar thing I took at that time-that the presidency is consecutive.”

The lawyer rejected suggestions that the case is an attempt to open the door for President Mahama to pursue a third term.

“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.”

He maintained that the issue before the court is about eligibility and constitutional interpretation.

“It’s not about a third term. It’s about whether he is eligible to stand for another term.”

Mr Kuranchie admitted that the possible outcome of the case could have implications for President Mahama’s future political plans, but insisted that was not the purpose of the legal action.

“That may be the effect, but that is not what we are seeking. In fact, if you read my writ, it doesn’t mention Mr Mahama.”

He said the Supreme Court’s interpretation should be based on the entire constitutional framework.

“If you read the entire 1992 Constitution, bring in the relevant process, and then the opportunity lies there that he can serve conservatively.”