The Majority Chief Whip, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, says his push for a review in the Kpandai parliamentary case is driven by what he describes as a grave injustice against the NDC’s Nsala Wakpal.

“For me, it is the injustice done to Nsala Wakpal,” the South Dayi MP, said on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday.

Mr Dafeamekpor insisted the NDC has not truly lost the case. He argued the Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by facts that were deliberately concealed.

“In fact, we haven’t lost well in the Kpandai case as the Supreme Court has been misled, because these material facts were all hidden from the Court,” he said.

He accused the NPP’s legal team of intentionally creating inconsistencies around key dates in the Electoral Commission’s gazette notification to strengthen their argument that the NDC went to court too early.

“The NPP lawyer stood in court, and when Justice Pwamang queried about the date inconsistency, they said it was a genuine mistake,” he said.

“But I have established over time that there was nothing genuine about this. It was deliberate.”

He explained that the alleged manipulation was intended to align the record with the NPP’s argument that the gazette notification was dated December 24, and that the NDC’s legal action was therefore premature.

“They had to do it to align with the NPP case, that the gazette notification was 24th December and, therefore, we went to court prematurely,” he said.

Dafeamekpor said the NDC filed the case based on an earlier official communication.

“Meanwhile, we went to court on the date Jean Mensa wrote to Parliament, 23rd December,” he said.

He argued the gazette situation at the time was already confused because of inconsistencies in the numbering of parliamentary seats.

“The gazette notifications were in a confused state, because the seat numbers had exceeded those constitutionally mandated,” he said.

“If you are gazetted 274 and you are gazetted another additional four, you have 278 seats. Where is the overlapping team coming from?” he asked.

He claimed steps were later taken to correct the gazette. “So they took steps to clean it up on the sixth of January,” he said.

But he accused the Electoral Commission’s representatives of later denying that January 6 publication and describing it as an error.

“Now he comes to court and denies the 6th January Gazette publication as an error and calls it a genuine mistake,” he said.

Mr Dafeamekpor rejected the suggestion that the inconsistencies were innocent.

“How can that be a genuine error?” he asked. He argued that the number of parliamentary seats is fixed and cannot be casually misstated.

“You can’t get numbers wrong, because the number of parliamentary seats is fixed,” he said. “There’s no fraction of seats in Parliament. It is either 276 or not.”

He said the EC had already communicated specific figures to Parliament, making the later contradictions harder to justify.

“When were you not allowing your head of institution to continue to communicate with Parliament?” he asked.

He insisted the conduct in the case raises serious concerns that must be investigated.

“There’s an original letter before Parliament that the gazette notifications were on the 23rd,” he said. “So you want the EC investigated. The EC has to be investigated.”

He said Parliament, the courts, and other investigative bodies can take up the matter. “Parliament can do that. CID can do that. Any investigating body can do that,” he said.

He revealed he intends to raise the issue formally in Parliament, but said the review process comes first.

“Because we are going for a review, I want us to settle the matter on review,” he said.

Mr Dafeamekpor also argued that the confusion over gazette dates extends beyond politics, as it affects a candidate’s legal right to challenge election outcomes.

“If they toy with the dates, they dance with it. If they collude with somebody to confuse you with the dates, your right to go to court will be affected,” he said.

“That’s exactly what is at play in this matter,” he added. He said this forms the basis of the review application.

“So this is the basis for your review. This is the basis for our review,” he said.