Kpandai seat: Minority questions why the Tamale High Court judge hasn’t released the ruling

The Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has raised issues against the judge who sat on the KJpandai parliamentary election petition, to release the full reasoning of the court.

He says the failure to deliver the promised judgment is not merely a procedural inconvenience. It prevents the MP Matthew 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 troubling decision that appears to lack a legal foundation.

“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, despite two formal written requests from legal representatives, creates the unfortunate impression that the reasons supporting the decision may not have been fully developed when the order was pronounced,” he said in a statement.

He added “This perception undermines public confidence in the judicial process and raises the following critical questions:

“How is Hon Mathew Nyindam expected to appeal an order purporting to nullify his mandate without access to the written reasoning, despite two formal applications for the judgement? 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 or respond to legitimate requests from legal practitioners?”

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

1. As Minority Leader, I must express my profound concern 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 judgement 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 order itself but by the court’s failure to deliver the promised written judgement that would allow the appellate process to function.

1. Justice Plange Brew issued a shocking 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.
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. In open court, His Lordship stated that his full, reasoned judgement would be ready on Friday, 28th November 2025.
5. That date has passed.
6. The judgement has not been released.
7. No explanation has been provided.

1. The situation is now beyond procedural irregularity—it borders on judicial obstruction of the appellate process.
2. On 24th November 2025, lawyers for Hon Mathew Nyindam (Isang & Law Chambers) wrote to the Registrar of the High Court, Tamale, formally applying for a certified copy of the judgement delivered on 24th November 2025, stating that they would pay the necessary costs.
3. When that application yielded no response and no judgement, the legal team wrote again on 28th November 2025; the very date His Lordship had promised the judgement would be ready. In that second letter, Hon Nyindam’s lawyers informed the court that they had been reliably informed that signed copies of the judgement would be ready for collection on 28th November 2025 at 2pm. However, as of 2pm, they had not been furnished with the judgement. The lawyers specifically noted that there are consequential orders in the judgement which have serious implications, thereby putting their client in distress.
4. Despite these two formal applications and despite the court’s own deadline, Hon Mathew Nyindam’s legal representatives have received nothing. No judgement. No explanation. No acknowledgement.
5. This is not mere delay. This is paralysis of the appellate process by the very court whose order is under challenge.

1. 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 troubling decision that appears to lack legal foundation.
2. 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, despite two formal written requests from legal representatives, creates the unfortunate impression that the reasons supporting the decision may not have been fully developed when the order was pronounced.
3. This perception undermines public confidence in the judicial process and raises the following critical questions:
4. How is Hon Mathew Nyindam expected to appeal an order purporting to nullify his mandate without access to the written reasoning, despite two formal applications for the judgement?
5. 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 or respond to legitimate requests from legal practitioners?

iii. How can the public maintain confidence when an order of questionable constitutionality remains unexplained and unjustified, despite repeated applications for its release?

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

1. Backed by the Minority Caucus, Hon Nyindam promptly filed a notice of appeal and an application for a stay of execution of the order purporting to nullify the election result. We maintain our commitment to the rule of law. However, that commitment presupposes a functioning appellate system. Without the written judgement which Hon Nyindam’s lawyers have now requested twice in writing the appellate process is paralysed.
2. I therefore call upon His Lordship to immediately publish the full written judgement and respond to the legitimate applications made by legal representatives on 24th and 28th November 2025. 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, ignores formal applications for the written reasons, and fails to provide timely written reasons purporting to justify that order.

1. The integrity of the 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, alter the composition of Parliament itself, and create serious distress for the affected Member of Parliament through non-disclosure of consequential orders.
2. The people of Ghana deserve better. The people of Kpandai deserve better. Hon Mathew Nyindam, who won their mandate decisively and whose lawyers have written twice requesting the judgement, deserves better. Our constitutional order demands better.

-,

&

Source:Fiilafmonline/3News