The Supreme Court has deferred its ruling on the legality of the proposed Kpandai parliamentary by-election to January 28, 2026, prolonging uncertaint
The Supreme Court has deferred its ruling on the legality of the proposed Kpandai parliamentary by-election to January 28, 2026, prolonging uncertainty over representation for the constituency and extending a legal battle that has drawn national political attention.
A five-member panel of the apex court, presided over by Justice Gabriel Scot Pwamang, announced the new date after hearing arguments from counsel representing both sides in a high-stakes constitutional challenge filed by the sitting Member of Parliament, Matthew Nyindam of the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
Proceedings on Tuesday were closely watched, with the courtroom filled by senior officials of both the NPP and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), alongside several Members of Parliament who attended in solidarity as the fate of one of their colleague hangs in the balance.
Legal Dispute
The case before the Supreme Court arises from a certiorari application filed by Nyindam, who is seeking to quash a November 2025 ruling of the Tamale High Court.
That decision annulled his victory in the 2024 parliamentary election and ordered a fresh poll within 30 days.
Matthew Nyindam had been declared winner of the election after securing 27,647 votes, representing 53.47 per cent of the total valid votes cast, while his closest challenger, Daniel Nsala Wakpal of the NDC, obtained 24,213 votes, or 46.33 per cent.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Plange Brew, upheld the election petition filed by Wakpal, citing what it described as “widespread irregularities” at approximately 41 polling stations.
The court concluded that the irregularities were significant enough to affect the overall outcome of the election and therefore nullified the entire constituency result.
Jurisdictional Challenge
At the Supreme Court, Nyindam’s legal team, led by NPP Director of Legal Affairs Gary Nimako, has mounted a jurisdictional challenge against the High Court’s decision.
Counsel argues that the original election petition was fundamentally defective because it was filed 32 days after the parliamentary election results were gazetted.
Under Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution, an election petition must be filed within 21 days of gazetting.
Nyindam’s lawyers contend that the failure to meet this constitutional deadline deprived the High Court of jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, rendering its subsequent orders null and void.
It is this threshold question—whether the High Court had the legal authority to entertain the petition—that the Supreme Court is expected to determine when it delivers its ruling later this month.
Electoral Commission And Parliamentary Fallout
Following the High Court’s annulment of the election, the Electoral Commission initially scheduled a by-election in Kpandai for December 30, 2025.
Parliament also took steps to treat the seat as vacant, triggering administrative preparations for a rerun.
However, on December 16, 2025, the Supreme Court intervened, issuing a stay of execution that directed the Electoral Commission to suspend all actions toward the by-election.
The interim order was aimed at preventing irreversible steps from being taken while the court considers the jurisdictional challenge.
As a result, all electoral preparations have been frozen pending the Supreme Court’s final decision.
Political Reactions
Reacting to the adjournment, Member of Parliament for South Dayi and Majority Chief Whip, Rockson Nelson Dafeamakpor, expressed confidence in the NDC’s position, stating that the party believes it will ultimately prevail once the legal process concludes.
Both major political parties have treated the case as a significant test of constitutional interpretation, given its potential impact on parliamentary composition and electoral jurisprudence.
Awaiting A Defining Ruling
With the ruling now set for January 28, 2026, Kpandai remains without settled parliamentary representation, while the Supreme Court deliberates on a decision that could either restore Nyindam’s mandate or clear the way for a fresh election.
Beyond the constituency, the case has broader implications for how election petitions are handled, the enforcement of constitutional timelines, and the balance between judicial intervention and electoral stability.
Until the apex court speaks, the political future of Kpandai—and the legal precedent governing parliamentary election disputes—remains firmly on hold.
COMMENTS