High Court Should Have Targeted Problem Polling Stations, Not Annul Complete Kpandai Election – Osae Kwapong

Introduction

The recent controversy surrounding the annulment of the Kpandai parliamentary election has sparked intense debate among legal experts, political analysts, and citizens alike. Dr. John Osae Kwapong, a Democracy and Development Fellow at the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), has offered critical insights into why the High Court’s decision to nullify the entire election was legally and procedurally questionable. His analysis emphasizes the importance of targeted remedies over wholesale annulments when addressing electoral irregularities.

Key Points

Background

The Kpandai parliamentary election controversy began when the High Court annulled the results of the 2024 election in the constituency. The court cited irregularities in several polling stations as justification for ordering a complete rerun of the election. This decision affected the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Kpandai, Matthew Nyindam, who had been declared the winner of the original election.

The case gained significant attention because it raised fundamental questions about how courts should handle electoral disputes. Should a few problematic polling stations invalidate an entire election? Or should courts focus their remedies on the specific areas where irregularities occurred?

Dr. John Osae Kwapong, an expert in democratic development and electoral processes, weighed in on the matter, expressing surprise at the High Court’s decision to annul the entire election rather than addressing only the problematic areas.

Analysis

Dr. Kwapong’s analysis centers on the principle of proportionality in judicial remedies. He argues that when courts identify irregularities in elections, their remedies should be directly proportional to the nature and extent of those irregularities.

“If there are legal infractions, then your remedy is where those legal infractions or errors occurred, then you go there, and you fix it,” Dr. Kwapong explained during his appearance on Newfile. “When I looked at the Kpandai ruling, I was quite surprised… There was no dispute about the fact that certain polling stations and their results were problematic.”

His argument is grounded in legal precedent and common sense. If only certain polling stations had issues, it would be more appropriate to invalidate those specific results and order recounts or reruns only in those areas, rather than nullifying the entire constituency’s election results.

Dr. Kwapong further elaborated: “So I was not sure why the judge’s remedy then was to throw the whole thing out and have a do-over, as opposed to let’s just remedy the problematic areas.” This approach would have been more efficient, less disruptive to the democratic process, and more legally sound.

The Supreme Court’s subsequent decision to overturn the High Court’s ruling appears to validate Dr. Kwapong’s perspective. The apex court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by hearing the petition after the legally mandated 21-day filing period had expired.

Legal Framework and Electoral Law

The controversy also highlights important aspects of Ghana’s electoral law. Under Ghanaian electoral rules, an election petition must be filed within 21 days of the gazette notification of results. Any petition filed after this period is considered invalid and cannot be entertained by the court.

The High Court’s decision to annul the election was based on irregularities in some polling stations, but the Supreme Court found that the petition itself was filed outside the legal timeframe. This jurisdictional error became the basis for overturning the High Court’s decision.

Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang dissented from the majority opinion, but the 4-1 majority decision restored Matthew Nyindam’s election as the legitimate Member of Parliament for Kpandai.

Practical Advice

For electoral stakeholders, legal practitioners, and citizens, this case offers several important lessons:

1. **Timely Action**: Election petitions must be filed within the legally prescribed timeframe. Missing deadlines can result in cases being dismissed regardless of their merits.

2. **Proportional Remedies**: Courts should consider remedies that address specific problems rather than applying blanket solutions that may be unnecessarily disruptive.

3. **Evidence-Based Decisions**: Judicial decisions in election matters should be based on clear evidence of irregularities and their impact on election outcomes.

4. **Jurisdictional Awareness**: Courts must be mindful of their jurisdictional limits and ensure they have the authority to hear cases before proceeding with substantive decisions.

5. **Transparency**: Electoral commissions should ensure transparent processes and timely gazetting of results to prevent disputes about filing deadlines.

FAQ

Conclusion

The Kpandai election controversy serves as a valuable case study in electoral jurisprudence and democratic governance. Dr. Osae Kwapong’s analysis highlights the importance of proportional remedies in election disputes and the need for courts to balance electoral integrity with procedural correctness.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the High Court’s ruling based on jurisdictional grounds reinforces the importance of following legal procedures and timelines in election petitions. It also validates the principle that remedies should be targeted and proportional to the problems identified.

Moving forward, this case should inform how electoral disputes are handled in Ghana, emphasizing the need for timely action, evidence-based decisions, and remedies that address specific problems without unnecessarily disrupting the democratic process. The balance between maintaining electoral integrity and respecting procedural requirements remains crucial for strengthening Ghana’s democratic institutions.