The Minority in Parliament has welcomed the decision by the Supreme Court to set aside the ruling of the Tamale High Court on the parliamentary election in the Kpandai Constituency.
By a 4–1 majority, the Supreme Court has held that the Tamale High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Kpandai election petition because it was filed outside the strict statutory time limits that govern all parliamentary election challenges.
In a press release issued after the ruling on January 28 and signed by the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, he said, “This landmark ruling
restores the unequivocal mandate freely and lawfully conferred by the people of Kpandai on their Member of Parliament, Hon. Matthew Nyindam, and re‑affirms the primacy of the Constitution, due process and electoral finality in our democracy.”
The Minority therefore called for ” An immediate and formal withdrawal of any residual notifications or administrative acts suggesting that the Kpandai seat is vacant, so that the records of Parliament and of the Electoral Commission accurately reflect the Supreme Court’s decision and the continuing mandate of Hon. Nyindam.”
It further demanded “A thorough internal review within Parliament, under the leadership of the Rt. Hon. Speaker Alban S. K. Bagbin, to ensure that in future no notification of vacancy is issued while appeals and applications for stay are pending, unless a final court expressly directs otherwise.”
Please read full statement below:
MINORITY STATEMENT ON THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE KPANDAI PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION CASE
The Minority in Parliament warmly welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana today to quash the deeply flawed judgment of the Tamale High Court which purported to annul the 2024 Parliamentary election in Kpandai and to set in motion a needless rerun. This landmark ruling
restores the unequivocal mandate freely and lawfully conferred by the people of Kpandai on their Member of Parliament, Hon. Matthew Nyindam, and re‑affirms the primacy of the Constitution, due process and electoral finality in our democracy.
Clarification on Jurisdiction and Timelines
By a clear 4–1 majority, the Supreme Court has held that the Tamale High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Kpandai election petition because it was filed outside the strict statutory time limits that govern all parliamentary election challenges. In doing so, the Court has underscored a basic but vital principle: no court, no party and no institution of state may, under any pretext, rewrite the rules after an election has been held and a winner duly declared and gazetted. Where the law says a petition must be filed within a fixed window from the date of gazette, any action outside that window is a nullity and any judgment founded on such a petition cannot stand.
We therefore welcome the Court’s order, given in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, which has set aside in its entirety the High Court’s judgment invalidating the Kpandai result and ordering a full constituency‑wide rerun. The effect of this ruling is that there will be no rerun in Kpandai and that Hon. Matthew Nyindam remains, in law and in fact, the duly elected Member of Parliament for the Kpandai constituency.
A Systemic Correction for Ghana’s Democracy
This judgment is not only a personal vindication for the sitting MP and the people of Kpandai; it is a systemic correction that will resonate far beyond a single constituency. It sends a powerful signal to all trial courts that in election matters, strict compliance with jurisdictional thresholds,
timelines and the limited range of remedies set by statute is not optional. It also reassures the Ghanaian voter that their sovereign will, once lawfully expressed and declared, cannot be lightly overturned through adventurous litigation mounted out of time or by remedies that the law does
not permit.
Parliament’s Premature Action: A Reckless Departure from Precedent
The Minority must, however, state in the clearest terms that this welcome decision also exposes as reckless and constitutionally unsafe the indecent haste with which Parliament, acting through the Clerk, rushed to declare the Kpandai seat vacant and to notify the Electoral Commission of a so‑called vacancy while live court processes and applications for stay were still pending.
That letter to the Electoral Commission, sent on the back of a single first‑instance judgment and in the teeth of pending challenges, triggered plans for a 30th December, 2025 rerun in Kpandai that the Supreme Court was ultimately compelled to halt. The apex Court had, as far back as December
2025, ordered the Commission to suspend all proceedings related to the Kpandai rerun pending the final determination of the case – an order that should never have been necessary had Parliament observed its own long‑standing practice of waiting for finality before activating the vacancy
machinery.
It is important, in this context, to recall the true history of Parliament’s treatment of Members who have faced serious legal challenges in the past. In the case of Hon. Dan Abodakpi, then Member for Keta, Parliament did not move to treat his conviction and imprisonment as an automatic and
irreversible mid‑term vacancy: after he received a presidential pardon in 2008, he returned from jail to the Chamber and continued to perform his functions as MP until that Parliament was dissolved in January 2009.
Similarly, figures such as Hon. Adamu Dramani Sakande, Hon. Kwame Nyimakan and Hon. James Gyakye Quayson ceased to sit or were removed only when either the full appellate process had run its course or final, explicit orders from superior courts made the constitutional consequences of their cases clear.
The through‑line in these precedents is restraint: historically, the House has been far more inclined to preserve representation while legal processes
unfold than to manufacture vacancies on the basis of a single, non‑final development.
In sharp contrast, Kpandai was treated as a seat that could be stripped away almost automatically on the basis of a contested High Court decision, without waiting for the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and despite a pending motion for stay of execution – a posture that the Minority
consistently described as unlawful, premature and dangerous for the rule of law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has now vindicated that Minority position. The very judgment on which the Clerk’s letter and the planned rerun were founded has been declared a nullity for want of jurisdiction. That should be a sobering lesson to all constitutional actors: 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” in the House.
The Minority’s Call to Action
In light of this development, the Minority calls for the following:
1. An immediate and formal withdrawal of any residual notifications or administrative acts suggesting that the Kpandai seat is vacant, so that the records of Parliament and of the Electoral Commission accurately reflect the Supreme Court’s decision and the continuing mandate of Hon. Nyindam.
2. A thorough internal review within Parliament, under the leadership of the Rt. Hon. Speaker Alban S. K. Bagbin, to ensure that in future no notification of vacancy is issued while appeals and applications for stay are pending, unless a final court expressly directs otherwise.
3. A recommitment by all sides of the House to the long‑standing parliamentary practice, illustrated by the Abodakpi, Sakande, Nyimakan and Quayson experiences, of respecting the hierarchy of courts and awaiting final judicial determination before taking steps that permanently affect representation and the composition of the House.
On Disagreement and Democratic Avenues
We also take note of the statement by the National Democratic Congress indicating its disagreement with aspects of the decision and its contemplation of a possible review. The Minority affirms that, in a constitutional democracy, even strong disagreement with a judgment must be
expressed through lawful avenues – reasoned critique, academic debate and, where available, the structured review procedures of the Supreme Court itself.
What must never recur is the attempt to weaponise an unfinalised judgment, still under challenge, to alter the composition of Parliament
and to send an entire constituency back to the polls prematurely.
Conclusion
For the avoidance of doubt, today’s ruling means that the people of Kpandai have an MP who was duly elected on 7th December 2024, duly declared and gazetted and now duly affirmed by the apex Court of the land. Their rights to representation has been restored and protected and their will as
expressed at the ballot box has, at last, been allowed to speak louder than procedural missteps and overreach.
We extend our collective appreciation to the bench. Although the full judgment is yet to be released by the Court, the summary read today serves as an indication that the certified judgment will provide a crucial clarification of the law on jurisdiction and timelines in election petitions and reinforce the constitutional balance between judicial scrutiny and respect for the people’s vote.
We also extend profound gratitude to the legal team of Hon. Matthew Nyindam for their tireless and brilliant advocacy, which was instrumental in enabling the rule of law to prevail.
We look forward to warmly receiving and welcoming Hon. Nyindam back to his lawful seat in Parliament when the House resumes sitting on 3rd February 2026.
Finally, we celebrate the steadfastness and unwavering support of the people of Kpandai, who stood firmly by their MP throughout this ordeal. We particularly thank the members of the New Patriotic Party in Kpandai for keeping the faith and not abandoning their MP in his time of need.
This victory is truly yours.
Going forward, the Minority will remain vigilant in defending due process, electoral integrity and the sovereign right of every Ghanaian constituency to choose its representative without fear that its mandate will be casually set aside.
Signed
Osahen Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin
Minority Leade
