By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
The Supreme Court of Ghana’s intervention on December 16 has effectively traded immediate electoral action for a high-stakes test of the country’s constitutional hierarchy. The move introduces a definitive pause in a crisis that was rapidly outpacing its legal boundaries. The judicial stay suspends all Electoral Commission activities, shifting the conflict’s resolution from a potential year-end ballot to a pivotal legal review scheduled for January 13, 2026.
Background: the road to annulment
The current crisis stems from a Tamale High Court ruling in November 2025, which declared the 2024 Kpandai parliamentary election results null and void. The petition, filed by the NDC’s Daniel Nsala Wakpal, alleged widespread procedural irregularities.
Justice Emmanuel Brew Plange’s ruling highlighted critical failures, including the unauthorised relocation of a collation centre and what he described as “deepened ink cancellations” on official records. The judge noted that while only 41 polling stations were scrutinised in detail, the errors were so systemic that they “rendered the records unreliable”, leading to an order for a full rerun across all 152 polling stations.
Judicial halt and expert perspectives
The Supreme Court has now frozen rerun preparations while it evaluates a challenge filed by Matthew Nyindam. Nyindam argues that the High Court exceeded its mandate by annulling the entire constituency’s results based on a fraction of the polling station data.
During the December 16 hearing, the apex court also directed Nyindam’s legal team to serve court processes on the NDC candidate, Daniel Nsala Wakpal, through substituted service. This procedural order ensures the case can proceed despite difficulties in effecting personal service.
Welcoming the suspension, Fatimatu Abubakar, a private legal practitioner and former Information Minister representing the NPP legal team, emphasised the necessity of the stay.
“It’s in the interest of justice that where a legal issue is persistent, we do not proceed to take decisions that will force the hand of the court,” she said.
Supporting this view, UPSA Law School lecturer Justice Abdulai described the pause as “surprising but very fair”. He noted that it prevents a “useless exercise of public resources” and warned that holding a rerun before the final application is determined could result in a newly elected MP being compelled to vacate the seat days later.
NDC response: clarifying the status of the seat
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) has met the judicial pause with a firm reminder that a legal “pause” is not a “reversal”. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, the Majority Chief Whip, clarified that the Supreme Court’s decision to suspend the rerun does not restore Matthew Nyindam to his former seat.
“It is a very straightforward ruling. It does not affect Nyindam’s position regarding his return to the House,” Dafeamekpor said on December 16. “He’s not an MP. The Supreme Court has not annulled or overturned the decision of the High Court. He is no longer an MP.”
He emphasised that while the planned December 30 rerun is on hold, the High Court’s nullification of the 2024 results remains the prevailing legal position. He cautioned against interpreting the stay as a victory for the NPP candidate, stressing that a “suspension is not co-terminous with annulment” and that Nyindam will not be recalled to Parliament.
NPP response: rule of law over institutional haste
The NPP’s Director of Elections, Evans Nimako, criticised the speed with which Parliament and the Electoral Commission moved to enforce the initial ruling. He argued that the law must take precedence when election results are contested, rather than rushing to declare vacancies.
Central to the NPP’s position is its interpretation of Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution. While Article 99(1) grants the High Court jurisdiction to determine whether a parliamentary seat has become vacant, the party argues that the right to appeal under Article 99(2) requires a stay of all enforcement actions, including reruns, until the judicial process is fully exhausted.
“Parliament will rush to communicate to the EC, and the Commission will issue a statement for a rerun. That is not the law,” Nimako said. He maintained that the Supreme Court’s order preserves the integrity of the process, adding: “We are not in a banana republic; decisions must undergo proper judicial scrutiny before enforcement.”
Voter sentiment: the human cost of limbo
While legal teams and party officials debate constitutional technicalities, the mood in Kpandai is one of fatigue. For many residents, the legal standoff is secondary to the absence of parliamentary representation.
“Why is Parliament fighting the courts? It makes us lose faith in the system,” said Aminu Idrisu, a resident of Kpandai. Another voter, Asibi Adamu, echoed the frustration: “All these politicians are making noise while our MP can’t work. Let the courts finish the case so we can move on.”
Institutional stalemate and polling data
The Supreme Court order follows heightened tension in Parliament, where Speaker Alban Bagbin had earlier clarified that Matthew Nyindam remained the MP until December 1, 2025. The subsequent declaration of a vacancy triggered chaotic scenes in the House on December 9.
Recent polling data from Global InfoAnalytics highlights the constituency’s volatility, placing Nyindam on 50% and Wakpal on 46% , a margin well within the survey’s plus-or-minus 3.9% margin of error.
Future outlook
The Supreme Court’s final ruling in January 2026 will serve as a defining test of Ghana’s institutional balance. It will determine whether electoral integrity demands a total rerun or whether the original parliamentary mandate should be restored.
For the people of Kpandai, however, the “interest of justice” remains an abstract principle as they head into 2026 without a sitting representative.
