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. This 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 “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 the 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 Matthew Nyindam’s challenge. Nyindam argues that the High Court exceeded its mandate by annulling the entire constituency’s results based on a fraction of the data.

Notably, 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 moves forward despite difficulties in reaching the respondent personally.

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 stated.

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 decided could result in a newly elected MP being forced to vacate the seat just 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 stated 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.”

Dafeamekpor emphasised that while the December 30 rerun is on hold, the High Court’s nullification of the 2024 results remains the current legal reality. He cautioned against misinterpreting the stay as a victory for the NPP candidate, asserting that a “suspension is not co-terminous with annulment” and that Nyindam will not be recalled to the House.

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 results are contested, rather than rushing to declare vacancies.

Central to the NPP’s position is the interpretation of Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution. While Article 99(1) grants the High Court jurisdiction to determine if a seat has become vacant, the NPP argues that the right to appeal under Article 99(2) necessitates 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 stated. He asserted 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 technicalities, the mood in Kpandai is one of fatigue. For many voters, the constitutional standoff is secondary to the lack of local representation.

“Why is Parliament fighting the courts? It makes us lose faith in the system,” noted Aminu Idrisu, a resident of Kpandai. Another voter, Asibi Adamu, echoed this sentiment: “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 severe friction in Parliament, where Speaker Alban Bagbin previously clarified that Matthew Nyindam remained the MP until December 1, 2025. The subsequent vacancy declaration led to chaotic scenes on December 9.

Recent data from Global InfoAnalytics underscores the volatility of the constituency, showing Nyindam with a narrow lead of 50 per cent against Wakpal’s 46 per cent, a margin within the survey’s plus or minus 3.9 per cent margin of error.

Future outlook

The final ruling in January 2026 will serve as a definitive test of Ghana’s institutional balance. It will determine whether electoral integrity requires a total rerun or if the original mandate will be restored. For the people of Kpandai, the “interest of justice” remains a distant concept as they enter 2026 without a seated representative.