NPP stalwart and lawyer Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko has torn apart the legal argument seeking to reinterpret Ghana's presidential term limits, warning that if it succeeds, President John Dramani Mahama could theoretically keep running for office indefinitely.
His Core Argument
In a blistering social media post, Gabby dismantled Ken Kuranchie's case before the Supreme Court line by line. Kuranchie argues that Article 66(2) only blocks presidents after two consecutive terms — meaning a break resets the clock.
Gabby flipped that logic on its head. If "two terms" really means "two consecutive terms," he asked, what stops a president from gaming the system forever?
The Slippery Slope
Gabby laid out a chilling scenario: Mahama completes this second term, runs again in 2028, loses, returns in 2032, wins, runs again in 2036, loses, comes back in 2040, wins, and seeks yet another term in 2044 — all because he never served two back-to-back terms.
"Why stop there?" Gabby asked. The answer, he implied, is simple: you wouldn't. The constitution would become a revolving door for one man.
"No Ambiguity"
Gabby, an experienced lawyer, insisted the constitution is crystal clear. There is no gray area to interpret. Any ruling that allows a president to return after a break would not be interpretation — it would be rewriting the constitution from the bench.
Why This Fight Matters
This case could determine whether Ghana's democracy has term limits in practice or only on paper. Gabby's intervention frames the stakes in stark terms: this is not about Mahama alone. It is about whether any future president can bend the rules to stay in power forever.
For Ghanaians, the question is whether the Supreme Court will read the constitution as written — or create a loophole that never closes.
