NPP’s Term Limits Suit: Justice Abdulai Warns Against Turning Supreme Court Into Personal Lawyer

Private legal practitioner Justice Abdulai has questioned the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) decision to take its presidential term-limit concerns to the Supreme Court, warning that the country’s highest court should not be turned into a personal lawyer for political parties.

Abdulai believes the Supreme Court is not required to provide constitutional explanations whenever political groups have questions about hypothetical situations. Instead, he argues that the court should concentrate on genuine legal disputes that require judicial determination.

Speaking on Channel One TV’s The Big Issue on Saturday, October 31, 2026, the legal practitioner expressed doubts about whether the Supreme Court would assume jurisdiction over the case filed by the opposition NPP.

He stressed that the judiciary’s responsibility is to resolve substantive legal controversies rather than become an advisory institution for political disagreements.

“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not your lawyer. As they have themselves said, they are not anybody’s lawyer to explain the Constitution to anyone. They are there to deal with serious life issues, not to deal with somebody’s speculations and become the personal lawyer for two feuding parties. That’s not their job,” Abdulai stated.

His comments come amid growing public discussion surrounding the NPP’s decision to seek a constitutional interpretation of presidential term limits.

The party has approached the Supreme Court to determine whether the constitutional restriction limiting a person to two presidential terms applies only to consecutive terms or also covers terms served at different periods.

The legal question has attracted considerable attention because of President John Dramani Mahama’s political history. Mahama has served two non-consecutive presidential terms, and the NPP’s application has generated debate about whether he would be constitutionally eligible to contest the 2028 presidential election.

Abdulai, however, believes the speculative nature of the matter could raise questions about whether the Supreme Court has sufficient grounds to exercise its jurisdiction.

Despite his reservations about the case, the lawyer acknowledged the importance of having a clear interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions.

He indicated that a definitive judicial interpretation could help prevent future presidents from exploiting possible gaps or ambiguities in the Constitution to extend their stay in office.

The debate therefore goes beyond the immediate political interests of the NPP and the NDC. It also raises important questions about constitutional interpretation, presidential eligibility and the role of the judiciary in Ghana’s democratic system.

As the legal process continues to attract public attention, Ghanaians will be watching closely to see how the Supreme Court responds to the application and what implications its eventual decision could have for future presidential elections.

Writer_nana [email protected]