The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Parliamentary Candidate for Kpandai in the 2024 general election, Daniel Nsala Wakpal, has petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down Section 18 of the Representation of the People Law (PNDCL 284), a provision that limits the time for parliamentary election petitions.
According to him, the provision violates constitutional guarantees of fair access to the courts and renders electoral justice dependent on administrative publication timelines.
In a writ invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, Daniel Wakpal is challenging Section 18, which imposes a strict 21-day deadline for filing parliamentary election petitions after results are published in the government Gazette.
Mr Wakpal is therefore asking the court for, among others, “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of section 18 of PNDCL 284, the said provision is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 99(1), 99(2), 49(2) and 49(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, and is to that extent null, void and of no effect.
He also wants a ruling that the High Court’s jurisdiction in election disputes “cannot be limited, circumscribed, abridged or taken away” by the law, and that petitions challenging polling station results need not wait for Gazette publication before being filed.
The dispute arises from the Kpandai parliamentary election, where Mathew Nyindam of the New Patriotic Party was declared the winner of the December 7, 2024, poll.
The 2024 NDC parliamentary candidate later filed petitions at the Tamale High Court challenging the results, citing alleged irregularities, including inconsistencies in result forms, polling station violations, and concerns over collation procedures.
The High Court later annulled the election and ordered a rerun, but the Supreme Court, in a separate ruling referenced in the filings, overturned that decision after finding the petition had been filed outside the statutory time limit tied to Gazette publication.
At the centre of Wakpal’s argument is whether the Gazette-based trigger for the limitation period is lawful, given that publication is controlled solely by the Electoral Commission (EC) and may occur at different times.
He argues this creates “serious injustice” because the start of the limitation period is not within the control of petitioners.
The plaintiff further argued that the provision effectively blocks access to justice in certain circumstances, particularly where there are multiple or conflicting Gazette notices.
The Attorney-General, representing the state, rejects the argument that the law unlawfully excludes court jurisdiction.
It argues that Section 18 is a procedural safeguard designed to ensure finality in elections rather than an unconstitutional ouster of jurisdiction.
“The Defendant rejects the claim that these limitations render the right of appeal insubstantial,” the Attorney-General’s statement said, adding that “when a High Court dismisses a petition for being statute-barred, it has decided on a point of law, which remains subject to appellate process.”
The state further argues that election disputes must be resolved quickly to preserve political stability, warning that allowing indefinite challenges would leave governance “in perpetual limbo.”
Mr Wakpal maintains that this jurisdiction cannot be restricted by ordinary legislation. The Attorney-General, however, insists that while jurisdiction exists, it can be regulated by reasonable time limits.
Legal arguments also focus on Article 49(2) and (3), which require polling station results to be declared immediately after counting and publicly announced before transmission to electoral authorities. The plaintiff argues that tying legal deadlines to later Gazette publication conflicts with this constitutional structure.
The case also raises broader questions about the role of limitation periods in election law and whether strict non-extendable deadlines can withstand constitutional scrutiny where administrative delays or inconsistencies occur.
The ruling is expected to clarify the balance between electoral finality and constitutional access to justice in parliamentary disputes, a recurring tension in Ghana’s electoral jurisprudence.
