Feature: An Update On The Tamale High Court Ruling Concerning The 2024 Kpandai Constituency Parliamentary Election

Justice Emmanuel Bart Plange Brew’s Failure to Deliver Promised Judgement Raises Serious Concerns About Judicial Process

1. As Minority Leader, I must express fresh concerns regarding the conduct of proceedings in the Kpandai election petition presided over by His Lordship Justice Emmanuel Bart Plange Brew.

2. On 24th November 2025, the Minority Caucus issued a statement clarifying the facts surrounding the disputed Tamale High Court ruling purporting to nullify the entire Kpandai parliamentary election result. In that statement, we expressed our commitment to the rule of law and our belief that the appellate process would restore confidence in the democratic outcome delivered by the voters of Kpandai.

3. Six days later, that confidence has been further shaken not only by serious doubts about the lawfulness and constitutionality of the ruling itself but by the court’s failure to deliver the promised written judgement that would allow the appellate process to function.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝘁𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀

4. Justice Plange Brew issued an order purporting to nullify the parliamentary mandate of Hon Mathew Nyindam, who won with 27,947 votes against 24,213; a margin of 3,734 votes. The petitioner challenged only 41 out of 152 polling stations, disputing approximately 500 votes. Yet the court purported to nullify the entire constituency result and ordered a fresh election within 30 days.

5. The Minority Caucus has serious doubts about the lawfulness and constitutionality of this decision. How does a court purport to nullify an entire constituency election when the challenge concerned only 41 polling stations? What legal or constitutional basis permits such a sweeping remedy for such a limited complaint?

6. These are not rhetorical questions. They demand answers. Yet His Lordship has not met the deadline he publicly announced for delivering the written judgement that would provide those answers.

7. In open court, His Lordship stated that his full, reasoned judgement would be ready on Friday, 28th November 2025.

8. That date has passed.

9. The judgement has not been released.

10. No explanation has been provided.

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀

11. The failure to deliver the promised judgement is not merely a procedural inconvenience. It prevents Hon Mathew Nyindam from preparing a meaningful appeal against an order purporting to strip him of his parliamentary mandate. It prevents the public from understanding how a court can purport to nullify 152 polling stations when only 41 were challenged. It prevents constitutional scrutiny of a shocking decision that appears to lack constitutional and legal foundation.

12. When a court purports to exercise power affecting parliamentary representation reducing the NPP Minority’s strength and favouring the governing party’s position, it must demonstrate the highest standards of judicial discipline and transparency. The failure to deliver a promised judgement on time creates the unfortunate impression that the reasons supporting the decision may not have been fully developed when the order was pronounced.

13. This perception undermines public confidence in the judicial process and raises critical questions:

1. How is Hon Mathew Nyindam expected to appeal an order purporting to nullify his mandate without access to the written reasoning?

1. How is the Electoral Commission expected to comply with a court order purporting to impose a 30-day timeline when the court cannot meet its own deadline?

iii. How can the public maintain confidence when a ruling of questionable constitutionality remains unexplained and unjustified?

1. How is the Minority expected to robustly discharge its duties when its numerical strength has been reduced by whimsical judicial order lacking published reasoning or demonstrable constitutional authority?

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

14. Hon Mathew Nyindam has filed a notice of appeal and an application for stay of execution of the order purporting to nullify the election result. The Minority group remains solidly behind him. We maintain our commitment to the rule of law. However, that commitment presupposes a functioning appellate system. Without the written judgement, the appellate process is paralyzed.

15. I therefore call upon His Lordship to immediately publish the full written judgement. Our constitutional democracy cannot function on unexplained directives. Justice cannot be done or be seen to be done when a court issues a constitutionally questionable order affecting parliamentary representation but fails to provide timely written reasons purporting to justify that order.

𝗔 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲

16. The integrity of judicial process requires transparent, timely, and reasoned justification of orders especially when those orders purport to nullify the clear electoral choice of an entire constituency based on challenges to only 41 polling stations and alter the composition of Parliament itself.

The people of Ghana deserve better. The people of Kpandai deserve better.  Hon Mathew Nyindam, who won their mandate decisively, deserves better. Our constitutional order demands better.

By Minority Leader, Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin