The Supreme Court has, by a 4–1 majority decision, quashed the judgment of the Tamale High Court that annulled the parliamentary election results in the Kpandai Constituency.
The decision by the apex court overturns the High Court ruling which had set aside the outcome of the parliamentary contest, effectively restoring the status quo prior to the annulment.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation and application of the law governing parliamentary election petitions, thereby warranting the intervention of the apex court.
Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang dissented from the majority decision, recording the lone opposing view on the panel.
Although the full reasons for the judgment are yet to be published, the decision brings legal finality to the dispute at the Supreme Court level and carries significant implications for parliamentary representation in the Kpandai Constituency.
Background to the Case
The case stems from a judgment by the Tamale High Court which nullified the election of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Kpandai, Matthew Nyindam, following a petition filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate, Daniel Nsala Wakpal.
The High Court subsequently ordered a rerun of the parliamentary election, prompting the Electoral Commission (EC) to schedule the exercise for December 31, 2025.
However, the process was halted after Mr Nyindam invoked the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, seeking to quash the High Court’s ruling.
Nyindam’s Argument: High Court Lacked Jurisdiction
At the core of Mr Nyindam’s case was the argument that the Tamale High Court lacked jurisdiction because the election petition was filed outside the mandatory 21-day period prescribed by law.
His legal team contended that the parliamentary election results were gazetted on December 24, 2024, thereby triggering the statutory timeline. On that basis, the petition filed on January 25, 2025, was time-barred and should not have been entertained.
According to the applicant, once the High Court lacked jurisdiction, all subsequent steps—including the judgment nullifying the election and ordering a rerun—were nullities.
Wakpal’s Response: January 6 Gazette Governs Timeline
Lawyers for Mr Nsala Wakpal opposed the application, maintaining that the High Court acted within its constitutional mandate under Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution.
They argued that the Kpandai election results were re-gazetted on January 6, 2025, and that the December 24, 2024, Gazette should not be treated as determinative.
According to them, the January 6 Gazette constituted a comprehensive publication covering all constituencies, including Kpandai, making the January 25 petition well within the statutory 21-day window.
They further argued that Mr Nyindam had relied on the January 6 Gazette during proceedings at the High Court and could not now resile from that position simply because the judgment went against him, raising issues of fairness and estoppel.
Electoral Commission’s Position
The Electoral Commission acknowledged the existence of multiple Gazette notifications, explaining that the different Gazette numbers reflected the publication of election results in batches at different times.
The Supreme Court’s decision now sets aside the High Court’s order for a rerun, bringing the legal contest over the Kpandai parliamentary election to a close.
