The Director of Legal Affairs of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Gary Nimako Marfo, has described the Supreme Court’s decision to quash a High Court judgment annulling the election of the party’s parliamentary candidate for Kpandai, Mr Matthew Nyindam, as clear, emphatic and final.

His remarks came shortly after the Supreme Court, by a 4–1 majority decision, set aside the ruling of the Tamale High Court which had earlier nullified Mr Nyindam’s election.

Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, who presided over the five-member panel, dissented from the majority decision.

The apex court’s ruling followed an application filed by Mr Nyindam, in which he invoked the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction to challenge the High Court’s judgment on the grounds of jurisdictional error.

The court upheld the application, finding that the High Court had acted without the requisite jurisdiction in annulling the parliamentary election.

As a consequence of the ruling, Mr Nyindam’s election has been restored, affirming his status as the duly elected Member of Parliament for the Kpandai Constituency.

Reacting to the decision, Mr Nimako Marfo stated that the Supreme Court had spoken decisively on the matter, leaving no ambiguity as to the legal position.

He explained that the judgment of the Tamale High Court had been lawfully quashed, thereby maintaining Mr Nyindam’s mandate as Member of Parliament.

• READ ALSO: Supreme Court quashes High Court judgment which annulled NPP’s Matthew Nyindam’s election as MP

“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 said. “Honourable Nyindam still remains the MP for the people of Kpandai. That position is maintained.”

Mr Nimako Marfo further stressed the importance of adherence to judicial outcomes, noting that the rule of law requires all parties to accept court decisions once the legal process has been exhausted.

According to him, while litigation outcomes may favour one side or the other, the authority of the courts must be respected.

“When it comes to court, the decision goes one way or the other. You take the legal route, and the court has said thus. That should be it,” he added.