A former Deputy Attorney-General (A-G), Joseph Kpemka has stated that there is no form of ambiguity in Article 66 clause (1) of the 1992 Constitution.
He said the constitutional provision clearly specified who qualified to be president.
His assertion was in reaction to a suit filed by the Editor- in- Chief of the Daily Searchlight newspaper, Ken Kuranchie who is seeking an interpretation of Article 66.
He contended that upon a proper interpretation of the constitutional provision, the only person who qualified for two four-year terms was a sitting President.
Mr Kpemka however indicated that Mr Kuranchie sought to know “if the eight years should be consecutive or not, which the Constitution is clear on, not to be more than eight years, if you have been a president for less than eight years, then you qualify.”
He explained that the Constitution was clear on that, for instance was the late President Atta Mills’ case where former President John Mahama had the chance to rule as a President still within Mills tenure for six months, then stood and served for four years.
“If President Mills had served for only one and a half years, then President Mahama’s four-year term as a President would have ended his chance to be eligible and barred him from contesting in any elections as a President and the Supreme Court has mandate to interpret the law which will bring finality to this particular issue since it has come up a number of times,” Mr Kpemka asserted.
It would be recalled that on June 12, 2023, Mr Kuranchie, sued former President Mahama over his eligibility to contest in the 2024 elections, seeking a declaration upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 66(1) of the 1992 Constitution, the former president was not qualified to contest in the 2024 presidential election.
According to Dr Clement Apaak, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Builsa South Constituency in the Upper East Region, pointed out that former President Mahama would not be distracted by the lawsuit filed against his decision to run for president in the 2024 general election.
He insisted that the suit was an indication of fear of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) had for the former president and the flagbearer of NDC would win the 2024 elections.
Dr Apaak vowed that the lawsuit cannot stand in the way of their flagbearer but only confirmed NPP’s morbid fear of the former president and assured that, he would win with parliamentary majority because he offered superior alternative to corrupt, reckless, illegal mining, family and friends governance.
