The National Second Vice Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Henry Nana Boakye, popularly known as Nana B, has explained the party’s decision to institute a fresh legal action at the Supreme Court challenging the possibility of President John Dramani Mahama contesting for a third term.
According to him, the NPP’s decision is informed by the need to present its own legal arguments against a third-term bid under Article 66 of the 1992 Constitution, rather than seeking to join existing cases filed by other applicants.
Nana B said the party considers it necessary to independently put forward what he described as a more compelling constitutional case against the possibility of President Mahama seeking a third term.
In a statement explaining the party’s position, he disclosed that there are already pending cases before the Supreme Court involving the interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing presidential terms.
He cited actions instituted by some groups he described as pro-NDC, as well as a separate case filed by an individual identified as Ken Korankye, seeking a declaration that President Mahama could contest for a third term.
Nana B argued that the party could not afford to allow the existing legal proceedings to advance without what it considers adequate opposition to the arguments being presented.
Drawing lessons from the legal proceedings involving the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), he said the NPP is concerned about the potential consequences of relying on other parties to adequately challenge arguments before the Supreme Court.
He recalled that, in the OSP case, the Attorney-General had sided with the plaintiff and that, in his view, interventions by civil society organisations had helped protect the institution.
Using that experience as a basis for the party’s decision, Nana B argued that it would have been politically risky to allow the applicant in the third-term case to advance arguments concerning Article 66 without what he considered proper counterarguments.
He described the arguments relating to the constitutional interpretation as “weird and strange” and maintained that the NPP needed to ensure that its position was independently presented before the court.
His explanation suggests that the party’s decision is driven by concerns over the adequacy of the legal challenges in the existing proceedings and the need to ensure that its interpretation of the Constitution is fully articulated.
Explaining why the party did not seek to join one of the pending cases, Nana B said the NPP considers it preferable to institute a fresh action rather than apply to become a party to proceedings initiated by another applicant.
He noted that an application to join an existing case would be subject to the Supreme Court’s discretion and could be refused.
According to him, filing a separate suit would give the party greater control over the arguments it wanted to advance against a possible third-term bid by President Mahama.
“Consequently, the Party decided to institute a fresh action to properly put before the Supreme Court, a more cogent case against President Mahama contesting a 3rd term under Article 66; rather than apply to join the action of the Pro NDC group and risk being refused at the Court’s discretion,” he stated.
Nana B’s explanation indicates that the NPP wants its constitutional objections to be considered on the strength of arguments advanced directly in its own case, rather than depending on the positions taken by other litigants or the Attorney-General.
The party’s action therefore forms part of its broader effort to challenge the interpretation that could permit President Mahama to seek another term in office.
- Nana B also defended the decision as consistent with what he described as the NPP’s longstanding commitment to protecting Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.He accused the National Democratic Congress (NDC) of attempting to manipulate the Constitution, arguing that the NPP has a history of resisting actions it considered inconsistent with the country’s constitutional framework.
He maintained that filing a separate suit would allow the NPP to take ownership of its legal arguments instead of relying on the Attorney-General or the Supreme Court justices to address the issues it considers important.
“The Party’s decision is consistent with its rich history of defending the 1992 Constitution against manipulation by the NDC and it also gives the party the opportunity to at least own our arguments rather than relying on the AG or the SC justices,” he said.
The comments underscore the political significance the NPP attaches to the interpretation of Article 66, which governs the tenure and eligibility of Ghana’s President.
The dispute over whether President Mahama could constitutionally contest for a third term raises questions about the interpretation of the presidential term-limit provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 66(1) provides that a person elected as President shall hold office for a term of four years, while Article 66(2) limits a person to serving as President for no more than two terms.
The central legal question in any challenge involving a possible third-term bid would be how these provisions apply to President Mahama’s previous and current periods in office.
Nana B’s statement sets out the NPP’s reasons for pursuing an independent legal challenge, with the party seeking to ensure that its interpretation of Article 66 is formally presented before the court.
The outcome of the pending proceedings could have significant implications for the interpretation of presidential term limits and the constitutional requirements governing eligibility to contest Ghana’s presidency.
By 1960news.com
