Kwaku Azar Questions NPP’s Supreme Court Suit On Presidential Term Limits

Legal scholar Kwaku Azar Asare has challenged the basis of the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) application to the Supreme Court over presidential term limits, arguing that the case may be seeking legal guidance on a public debate rather than resolving an existing constitutional dispute.

In a commentary issued, Mr Asare said the party’s application raises questions about whether there is an actual constitutional dispute for the court to resolve, arguing that constitutional interpretation should not be used merely to settle public debates.

“Can the Supreme Court be asked to interpret the Constitution merely to settle a public debate? The answer is NO!” he stated.

The NPP is seeking declarations on the interpretation of Articles 58(2) and 66(1), (2) and (3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, including whether the presidential term limit means a maximum of two terms, whether consecutive or non-consecutive.

Mr Asare argued that the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisdiction is not a general invitation to clarify provisions whenever questions arise in public discourse.

“Article 2 gives broad standing to challenge constitutional violations. But broad standing does not eliminate the need for a justiciable cause of action,” he said.

He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilson v. Attorney-General as an example of the distinction between a genuine constitutional dispute and a request for legal guidance without an actual controversy.

According to him, the court dismissed that case because the plaintiff had sought declarations on a constitutional provision without identifying an actual dispute in which the provision had been invoked as a defence.

“The Court held that it had jurisdiction to interpret constitutional provisions in the context of disputes, but no jurisdiction to tender advice to prospective litigants,” Mr Asare stated.

He also referred to Republic v. Special Tribunal; Ex parte Akosah, which outlined circumstances in which genuine constitutional interpretation questions may arise, including ambiguity in constitutional language, conflicting interpretations and conflicts between constitutional provisions.

However, he cautioned against treating every public disagreement over constitutional meaning as sufficient grounds for Supreme Court proceedings.

“Merely because someone advances a different interpretation does not mean the Supreme Court must be invited to settle the disagreement,” he said.

Mr Asare stressed that the precise contents of the NPP’s writ would be important in determining whether it raises a genuine constitutional controversy, adding that public disagreement alone does not automatically establish a justiciable case.

He maintained that the court should address the jurisdictional question before considering the substance of the party’s claims.

“The Supreme Court is a court of law, not a constitutional advice centre,” he stated.