By: Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
While the immediate shock of the Kpandai ruling has begun to settle, the deeper implications for Ghana’s electoral jurisprudence are only now coming into sharp focus. The Supreme Court of Ghana has delivered a landmark verdict in the high-stakes battle over the Kpandai parliamentary seat. In a four-to-one majority decision on Wednesday, January 28, 2026, the apex court quashed a previous High Court ruling that had annulled the election of Matthew Nyindam. The judgment effectively reinstates the New Patriotic Party (NPP) candidate as the duly elected representative for the constituency. Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang was the lone dissenting voice on the five-member panel.
The Genesis of the Legal Conflict
The dispute began after the 2024 general elections when the Tamale High Court annulled the results in Kpandai. The lower court cited widespread irregularities and procedural flaws. These included the relocation of the collation center and unreliable records. However, the legal focus shifted from the quality of the vote to the timeline of the challenge. Under Ghanaian law, an election petition must be filed within twenty-one days of the gazette publication. The Supreme Court’s review rested on whether the original petitioner met this strict constitutional deadline.
The Supreme Court Ruling
The majority of the Supreme Court found that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the original case. The justices accepted the argument that the official gazette notice was issued on December 24, 2024. This made any petition filed after the subsequent twenty-one-day window legally incompetent. By prioritizing procedural law over substantive claims, the court avoided a re-examination of the alleged voting irregularities. Instead, the bench reaffirmed that procedural timelines are mandatory. They cannot be extended by lower courts, even when claims of fraud or error are present.
Perspective of the Candidates
Matthew Nyindam described the ruling as a victory for democracy and the will of the electorate. Nyindam expressed confidence that the verdict is legally sound. “I want to thank God for what He has done in my life, and also to thank my lawyers,” he said. He noted that while he never sought a court battle, he is unfazed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) talk of a review. “If they still think they have a good case and want to drag me back to court, who am I to say no?” he added.
In contrast, the NDC candidate, Daniel Nsala Wakpal, and his legal team expressed profound disappointment. Wakpal maintains that the focus on filing dates overshadowed the substantive issues of electoral fairness he raised. His representatives argued that the decision creates a worrying precedent where procedural technicalities can shield “crooked electoral officers” and ignore documented voting irregularities.
The Minority’s Reaction and Parliamentary Demands
Following the ruling, the Minority in Parliament issued a formal statement calling for the immediate withdrawal of all administrative notices suggesting the Kpandai seat is vacant. They asserted that all parliamentary and Electoral Commission records must now accurately reflect that Matthew Nyindam remains the duly elected MP. The Minority cautioned that no institution has the authority to “rewrite the rules” after a winner has been declared and gazetted. Any judicial or administrative action based on a petition filed outside the legal timeframe, they argued, is null and void.
Beyond the immediate reinstatement, the Minority urged Speaker Alban S. K. Bagbin to conduct an internal review of parliamentary procedures. The goal is to prevent future scenarios where vacancy notifications are issued while appeals or applications for stay are still pending. The Minority referenced historical precedents—including the Abodakpi, Sakande, Nyimakan, and Quayson cases—as examples where the House exercised restraint until all legal processes were fully exhausted.
The Ghana Constitution and Electoral Law
Legal analysts note that the ruling reinforces the supremacy of the Representation of the People Act. These laws establish rigid timelines to ensure that election disputes do not linger indefinitely. The case highlighted a unique complication regarding dual gazette notices. The EC issued notices on December 24, 2024, and January 6, 2025. While the NDC argued the second date should apply—as it was the notice presented to Parliament for the swearing-in—the Supreme Court’s majority prioritized the initial publication as the definitive legal trigger. This decision effectively rewrites the rules of engagement for election lawyers, who must now treat the first public notice as the absolute deadline.
The NDC’s Persistence
The NDC leadership remains aggrieved by the decision, viewing it as a move that values form over substance. Majority Chief Whip Nelson-Rockson Dafeamekpor insisted the matter is not settled. “As a party, we are aggrieved by this decision, and therefore, we will advise our candidate on the matter regarding the next step to take,” he told reporters. He added, “The NPP shouldn’t think that it is over. It is not over.” The party indicated it would study the full written judgment, expected on February 6, 2026, before deciding whether to seek a formal review. The NDC leadership reaffirmed that they are “most lawful” and will explore every constitutional avenue to restore what they believe is the true mandate of the Kpandai people. However, the consensus among legal experts—including those within the legislative framework—urges the party to accept the ruling rather than pursue further litigation.
A Steep Hill for Reversal
Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has cautioned that while a review is possible, the chances of success are low. Kpebu explained that the Supreme Court rarely reverses its own ordinary bench decisions. “Most reviews do not succeed,” he noted, adding that even “obvious or glaring errors” often fail to find favor in a review application. This legal reality sets a high bar for any attempt to unseat the newly reinstated MP. Nyindam echoed this sentiment, stating he is “very sure” the ruling cannot be overturned because the court already considered all NDC arguments. John Darko, Legal Counsel to the Minority Caucus, also described a review as “unnecessary and impractical.” Darko emphasized that the court has set a “significantly high threshold” for admitting review applications, one he believes the NDC is unlikely to meet.
Reaction From the NPP
The NPP has welcomed the verdict as clear and final, framing it as a triumph for the rule of law. Gary Nimako Marfo, the party’s Director of Legal Affairs, said the ruling corrects a significant legal error. “I think that the Supreme Court has spoken emphatically that the decision of the Tamale High Court was made without jurisdiction, and so the court has quashed it,” he stated. He urged all parties to respect the finality of the court to ensure political stability and parliamentary continuity, noting, “Honourable Nyindam still remains the MP for the people of Kpandai. That position is maintained.”
Power Balance in the 9th Parliament
The restoration of Matthew Nyindam is a strategic win for the NPP in a house with a historic disparity. The NDC currently holds a commanding majority with 185 seats compared to the NPP’s 87 seats. While the Kpandai seat does not change the majority status—currently led by Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga—it prevents a further erosion of the Minority’s numbers. More importantly, it changes the parliamentary rules of engagement by validating the NPP’s tactical use of stays and appeals to maintain legislative numbers during protracted legal battles.
Views of Experts and Ordinary Ghanaians
Legal experts are divided on the implications of the ruling. Some suggest that strict adherence to timelines is necessary for judicial certainty. Others worry that using technicalities to overturn findings of irregularities may weaken public trust in the electoral system. On the streets of Kpandai, the reaction is split. Supporters of Nyindam celebrated with the MP, who noted, “I am sure that if you are in Kpandai today, you will see the joy of the people.” However, other residents expressed confusion over how a court could acknowledge voting flaws yet dismiss the case based on a calendar date.
The Road Ahead for Electoral Integrity
Ultimately, the Kpandai case forces a critical conversation about whether the clock should ever outweigh the ballot. As the nation awaits the full written judgment on February 6, 2026, the focus must shift toward reform. The Electoral Commission must resolve the administrative confusion of “dual gazetting” to prevent future jurisdictional traps. For Ghana’s democracy to remain the “Black Star” of Africa, the legal system must ensure that technicalities protect the process without silencing the voter. Moving forward, the true test will be whether Parliament can close these loopholes before the next electoral cycle begins.
