Dr Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe, a founding member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has issued a stern warning to the clergy.
According to Dr Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe, the Clergy must stay in their lane and leave. Constitutional matters alone
His comments come on the back of some religious leaders who have been suggesting that President John Dramani Mahama should seek a third term.
The Statesman cautioned the religious leaders to stop making unconstitutional declarations.
He noted that Ghana’s constitution limits the president and can only be changed through a national referendum, not dreams, visions, or prophetic declarations.
Dr Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe, in a statement titled, ‘Religious Leaders Must Stay Within Their Lane—Leave Constitutional Matters Alone’, stated, “Let me state clearly and unequivocally: this must not happen, and it will not happen”.
Dr. Nyaho-Tamakloe further warned that Ghana’s democracy must not be derailed by pulpit proclamations.
He added, “Ghanaians are looking for serious leadership… not theatrical spirituality that distorts truth and sows confusion”.
“Ghana’s peace and democratic stability must never be sacrificed for personal ambition or populist spirituality. Enough is enough. Ghana deserves better.”
It will be recalled that the NPP’s Justin Frimpong Kodua accused the NDC and John Mahama of plotting to remove Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo to enable President John Dramani Mahama to contest for a third presidential term.
He claimed that the argument revolves around Article 66(2) of the Constitution.
Justin Frimpong Kodua noted that some individuals are allegedly planning to interpret Article 66(2) of the Constitution in a way that implies the two-term limit applies only to two successive terms.
Meanwhile, Prof H Kwasi Prempeh, the Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee, has said the Supreme Court is not omnipotent or above the Constitution.
Prof Prempeh on Facebook on Wednesday, June 11, 2025, wrote, “Any interpretation of Article 66(1) to the effect that a President who has been elected to a second term can stand election again (i.e., a third time) upon the expiration of the second term is illegitimate and bogus.
Judges do not have the authority to rewrite, amend or set aside a provision of the constitution whose text and purpose, including from history, admit to only one meaning. Two terms mean two terms!”
He added, “If the Framers of Article 66(1) had wanted to say that a President cannot be elected to office as President for more than two consecutive terms,’ thereby leaving room for a possible non-consecutive third term, they would have said so.
They would have said so, as they knew what is said in Article 246(2) of the same Constitution in relation to a District Chief Executive. There is nothing wrong with or unclear about Article 66(1) in its current form. Two terms mean two terms!”
Prof Prempeh added, “This matter must be laid to rest. The Supreme Court is not omnipotent or above the constitution”.
