The story of President John Dramani Mahama’s political journey is one
of resilience, unexpected turns, and constant debates about his place in
Ghana’s democratic evolution. From his rise as vice president under Professor
John Evans Atta Mills, to his assumption of the highest office following Mills’
passing in 2012, through his electoral defeat in 2016, his comeback attempts in
2020, and finally his dramatic victory in the 2024 elections, Mahama’s career
has often reflected both the promise and the tensions within Ghana’s democracy.
With his swearing-in on January 7, 2025, he embarked on what the constitution
clearly defines as his second and final term as president. But even as the ink
dried on his second mandate, political debates about his future ignited
quickly, fueled by allegations from the opposition New Patriotic Party that he
harbored intentions of altering the constitution to allow himself to contest a
third time in 2028.
The constitution of Ghana, adopted in 1992, is explicit
about presidential tenure. Article 66(2) states in no uncertain terms that no
person shall be elected president of Ghana more than twice. This clause applies
whether the terms are served consecutively or not. Mahama’s situation is
therefore clear: his first term ran from 2012 to 2017, and his second began in
January 2025 after his 2024 victory. That amounts to two terms, the maximum
permissible under the law. Yet the political climate in Ghana is such that even
clear constitutional provisions can become subject to speculation, particularly
when opponents seek to shape public opinion early in a government’s mandate.
The NPP, reeling from its defeat in the 2024 elections,
wasted little time in constructing a narrative that Mahama’s ambitions were not
entirely satisfied by his comeback. Spokespersons of the party, alongside
aligned commentators, began to float claims that the president and his allies
in the National Democratic Congress were quietly considering constitutional
changes that would enable him to extend his stay beyond 2029. They argued that
given Mahama’s strong influence within his party and his proven ability to
orchestrate comebacks, it was not far-fetched to think he might try to bend the
rules. These allegations, though never substantiated with hard evidence, gained
traction because across Africa the phenomenon of “third termism” has been a
recurring challenge. From Côte d’Ivoire to Uganda, leaders have often sought
ways to amend constitutions to prolong their hold on power. By positioning
Mahama in that light, the NPP hoped to create suspicion and unease among
citizens and the international community.
Mahama, however, seemed acutely aware of the dangers these
accusations posed to his credibility and to Ghana’s democratic image. In a
political environment where rumors can quickly overshadow governance, silence
was not an option. Thus, in August 2025 during an official visit to Singapore,
he addressed the issue head-on. In his remarks, he made it absolutely clear
that he would not contest in the 2028 general elections. He emphasized that his
current term was his last and that he had no intention of tampering with the
constitution to seek an extension. More importantly, he framed his decision in
the context of responsible governance. He explained that since he would not be
on the ballot in 2028, he was better positioned to enforce fiscal discipline
and avoid the election-year spending overruns that have historically
destabilized Ghana’s economy. His words, “I will not be a candidate in the next
elections and therefore I can hold the line when it comes to fiscal discipline,”
resonated deeply because they addressed both the political rumors and the
economic challenges facing the country.
By making such a definitive declaration, Mahama not only
reaffirmed the constitutional order but also repositioned himself as a statesman
above personal ambition. In doing so, he directly countered the NPP’s narrative
that he sought to manipulate the rules. Instead, he portrayed himself as a
leader willing to respect term limits and focus his energies on governance
rather than political scheming. His announcement was strategic because it came
early in his second term, effectively neutralizing debates that might have
dragged on for years and distracted from his administration’s agenda.
The context in which Mahama made this announcement is
crucial. Ghana has long prided itself on being a beacon of democracy in Africa,
with peaceful transitions of power and respect for term limits. No president in
the Fourth Republic has ever served beyond two terms. This democratic tradition
is one of the country’s most treasured achievements, setting it apart from many
nations in the region where leaders have clung to power by amending
constitutions or suppressing dissent. For Mahama to even flirt with the idea of
seeking a third term would have jeopardized that reputation, not only at home
but also abroad. His categorical rejection of such intentions thus reassured
both domestic and international observers that Ghana remained committed to
democratic norms.
The NPP’s accusations, while politically motivated, were
effective in one sense: they forced Mahama to clarify his position early. From
a strategic standpoint, the opposition’s decision to paint him as a potential
threat to term limits was a way of undermining his legitimacy and mobilizing
public concern. But by addressing the issue openly, Mahama turned the situation
to his advantage. He was able to project himself as a responsible leader who
respects the law and is focused on governance rather than personal ambition. In
doing so, he disarmed one of the opposition’s key narratives.
Beyond the immediate political tussle, Mahama’s decision not
to contest again has significant implications for Ghana’s political landscape.
For the NDC, it means the search for a successor to carry the party’s banner
into the 2028 elections must begin in earnest. Unlike in many African countries
where outgoing presidents seek to handpick successors in a way that extends
their influence, Mahama’s early exit clears space for an open contest within
his party. Of course, he is likely to play a role in shaping that succession,
but the fact that he has openly taken himself out of the equation adds clarity
to the process. For the NPP, it shifts their strategy. Rather than campaigning
against Mahama in 2028, they will need to craft a vision that contrasts with
his legacy while appealing to an electorate that will judge them against the
achievements or failures of his final term.
From a governance perspective, Mahama’s position also
liberates him from the cycle of short-term populist decision-making that often
characterizes election seasons. With no re-election prospects to worry about,
he can make tough decisions that may not be immediately popular but are in the
long-term interest of the nation. His emphasis on fiscal discipline is one
example. Ghana’s economy has long struggled with election-year overspending,
where governments loosen the purse strings to win votes, leaving behind large
deficits and debt crises. By committing not to contest again, Mahama
effectively signals that he can resist this temptation and focus instead on
building a more sustainable fiscal path.
Nevertheless, skepticism remains in some quarters. For
die-hard supporters of the NPP, Mahama’s declaration is seen as mere rhetoric
intended to calm anxieties while leaving open the possibility of
behind-the-scenes maneuvers. They argue that political promises are easily made
and just as easily broken, especially in Africa where constitutional amendments
have often been pushed through under pressure. Yet for now, the clarity of
Mahama’s words and the firmness of his tone provide a strong counter-narrative.
The onus will be on him to demonstrate through action that he truly intends to
govern responsibly and hand over power peacefully at the end of his term.
In reflecting on this chapter of Ghana’s political story, it
is evident that the issue is bigger than Mahama himself. It speaks to the
broader question of how leaders in Africa manage the balance between personal
ambition and institutional integrity. By declaring that he will not seek a
third term, Mahama aligns himself with the tradition of leaders who respect
constitutional boundaries and strengthen democracy by stepping aside when their
time is up. It also reflects his understanding that legacy matters. He knows that
any attempt to subvert the constitution would overshadow every other
achievement of his presidency, reducing his historic comeback to a cautionary
tale of power-hunger. Instead, he appears intent on leaving office as a leader
who respected the rules, stabilized the economy, and set the stage for a smooth
democratic transition.
Ultimately, Mahama’s decision and declaration mark a turning
point. They extinguish the speculation that he might alter the constitution for
personal gain, reaffirm Ghana’s democratic traditions, and reshape the
political strategies of both his party and the opposition. The NPP’s
accusations, though politically expedient, inadvertently gave him the
opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship and clarity. As Ghana marches toward
2028, the nation can do so with the assurance that its sitting president has no
plans to manipulate the rules to extend his stay in office. In a continent
where the question of term limits has often caused turmoil,that clarity is not
just significant for Ghana it is a statement to Africa and the world that
democracy can endure when leaders choose principle over power.