The Supreme Court has, by a 4–1 majority decision, quashed the judgment of the Tamale High Court ruling, which annulled the parliamentary election results in the Kpandai Constituency.
The apex court’s decision effectively overturns the High Court ruling that had set aside the outcome of the parliamentary contest, restoring the status quo prior to the annulment.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation and application of the law governing parliamentary election petitions, warranting the intervention of the apex court.
Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang dissented from the majority decision, marking the lone opposing view on the panel.
While the full reasons for the judgment are yet to be published, the ruling brings legal finality to the dispute at the Supreme Court level and has significant implications for parliamentary representation in the Kpandai Constituency.
The case arises from a decision by the Tamale High Court, which overturned the election of New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament, Matthew Nyindam, after a petition filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate, Daniel Nsala Wakpal.
The High Court subsequently ordered a rerun of the parliamentary election. Following the judgment, the Electoral Commission (EC) scheduled the rerun for December 31, 2025.
However, the process was halted after Mr Nyindam applied to the Supreme Court, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction to quash the High Court’s ruling.
The outcome of the decision by the apex court is expected to determine whether the High Court’s order for a rerun will stand or be set aside.
Nyindam’s Argument: High Court Lacked Jurisdiction
At the heart of Mr Nyindam’s case is the argument that the Tamale High Court acted without jurisdiction because the parliamentary election petition was filed outside the mandatory 21-day statutory period required by law.
His lawyers contend that the Kpandai parliamentary election results were gazetted on December 24, 2024, triggering the timeline. On that basis, the petition filed by Mr Nsala on January 25, 2025, was time-barred and should not have been entertained.
According to the applicant, once the High Court lacked jurisdiction, every step taken thereafter—including the judgment nullifying the election and ordering a rerun—was a nullity.
The legal team argues that the error is apparent on the face of the record, warranting the Supreme Court’s intervention.
Wakpal’s Response: January 6 Gazette Governs Timeline
Lawyers for Mr Nsala Wakpal have strongly opposed the application, maintaining that the High Court acted within its constitutional mandate under Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution.
They argue that the Kpandai results were re-gazetted on January 6, 2025, and that the December 24, 2024, Gazette should not take precedence.
According to them, the January 6, 2025, Gazette was a comprehensive publication covering all constituencies, including Kpandai, making the petition filed on January 25 well within the 21-day limit.
The NDC candidate’s legal team also contends that Nyindam relied on the January 6 Gazette during proceedings at the High Court and cannot now resile from that position merely because the judgment went against him, raising issues of estoppel and fairness.
Electoral Commission’s Position
The Electoral Commission has acknowledged the existence of multiple Gazette notifications, explaining that different Gazette numbers reflected different batches of constituencies published at different times.
The case has been adjourned to January 28, 2025, for ruling. Meanwhile, the order suspending the re-run is still in force until the determination of the matter.
