By Daniel Bampoe
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive judgment in the protracted Kpandai parliamentary election dispute, quashing the controversial Tamale High Court ruling that had annulled the 2024 election results and ordered a constituency-wide rerun.
The decision, issued on 28 January 2026, restores the lawful mandate of Matthew Nyindam of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and ends months of political and legal uncertainty in the constituency.
For the Minority in Parliament, the ruling is more than a vindication of a single Member of Parliament—it represents a critical safeguard for the rule of law, electoral integrity, and constitutional governance.
In a statement released immediately after the ruling, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin described the Tamale High Court judgment as “deeply flawed” and welcomed the Supreme Court’s exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction in quashing the ruling.
Kpandai Dispute
The Kpandai controversy dates back to the December 2024 parliamentary elections. Nyindam was declared winner with 27,647 votes (53.47%) against Daniel Nsala Wakpal of the NDC, who received 24,213 votes (46.33%).
Alleging irregularities at several polling stations, Wakpal filed a petition with the Tamale High Court before Justice Emmanuel Plange Brew.
In November 2025, Justice Plange Brew ruled in favor of the petition, nullifying Nyindam’s victory and ordering a full constituency rerun within 30 days.
Following the ruling, Parliament’s administrative machinery, through the Clerk, swiftly declared the Kpandai seat vacant and notified the Electoral Commission (EC), which proceeded to plan a by-election for 30 December 2025.
The Minority immediately objected, noting that the High Court ruling was non-final and still subject to appeal, and argued that Parliament’s actions were premature, unconstitutional, and risked undermining the integrity of representation for the people of Kpandai.
Supreme Court Confirms Jurisdictional Limits
On 28 January 2026, a five-member Supreme Court panel delivered a 4–1 majority ruling, finding that the Tamale High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because it had been filed beyond the statutory 21-day period mandated under Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution after the gazette of the result.
Justice Gabriel Pwamang dissented.
The apex court’s judgment confirms that no court, party, or state institution can rewrite electoral rules post-election. Any action outside the constitutionally defined timelines is null and void.
As a result, Nyindam’s election was formally reaffirmed, and the proposed by-election was cancelled.
Minority’s Critique of Parliamentary Conduct
The Minority emphasized that the Supreme Court ruling exposed a reckless departure from established parliamentary precedent.
Historical cases, including those of MPs Dan Abodakpi (Keta), Adamu Dramani Sakande, Kwame Nyimakan, and James Gyakye Quayson, demonstrate that Parliament traditionally waits for final court rulings before declaring a seat vacant or acting to remove an MP.
In sharp contrast, Kpandai was treated as a seat that could be stripped almost automatically based on a single first-instance judgment, despite the existence of pending appeals and a stay of execution application.
The Minority described this as a dangerous administrative overreach, and the Supreme Court’s decision now vindicates their concerns.
“Parliament must not move faster than the law; administrative letters must not outrun judicial processes; and no arm of government should lend itself to the creation of manufactured vacancies,” the Minority statement read.
Significance for Democracy And Voter Confidence
For the Minority, the Supreme Court ruling has far-reaching implications beyond Kpandai. It reinforces that:
Strict compliance with statutory timelines and jurisdictional thresholds is mandatory in election disputes.
The will of the people, once lawfully expressed and gazetted, cannot be casually overturned through delayed petitions or unauthorized remedies.
Judicial review remains a vital safeguard against premature administrative or parliamentary action.
The ruling restores confidence in Ghanaian democracy, ensuring that voters’ choices are respected and that no constituency is left unrepresented due to procedural shortcuts.
Calls to Action
The Minority has called on Parliament and the EC to:
Withdraw all notifications or administrative acts suggesting the Kpandai seat was vacant.
Conduct a comprehensive internal review, led by Speaker Alban S.K. Bagbin, to prevent future premature declarations of vacancy.
Reaffirm long-standing parliamentary practice of respecting the hierarchy of courts and awaiting final judicial determination before acting in ways that alter representation.
The caucus also noted that while the NDC has indicated possible disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling, any dissent must be pursued through lawful avenues, such as reasoned critique, academic debate, or the structured review mechanisms of the apex court—not by attempting to manipulate or accelerate parliamentary or electoral processes.
The Supreme Court ruling ensures that the people of Kpandai now have an MP who was duly elected on 7 December 2024, lawfully declared, and constitutionally affirmed.
Matthew Nyindam is expected to return to his parliamentary seat when the House resumes on 3 February 2026.
The Minority expressed gratitude to Nyindam’s legal team, led by Gary Nimako, for their pivotal role in defending the rule of law, and to the people of Kpandai for their unwavering support throughout the ordeal.
The caucus reaffirmed its commitment to defending due process, electoral integrity, and the sovereign rights of Ghanaian voters, ensuring that representation is never jeopardized by premature or unlawful administrative actions.
