Nyindam ‘Substantial Miscarriage of Justice’: NPP Calls on Supreme Court to Overturn Kpandai Election Annulment

Introduction

In a high-stakes Ghanaian political development, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) has rallied behind Kpandai Member of Parliament (MP) Matthew Nyindam, labeling the recent High Court decision annulling his 2024 election victory as a “substantial miscarriage of justice.” NPP Director of Legal Affairs, Gary Nimako Marfo, urged the Supreme Court to intervene and quash the ruling during an appearance on Joy FM’s Top Story on December 1, 2025. This case centers on an allegedly untimely election petition filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC), spotlighting strict procedural timelines in Ghana’s electoral law.

Understanding the Nyindam Supreme Court appeal is crucial for grasping how jurisdictional errors and filing deadlines can reshape parliamentary outcomes. This article breaks down the controversy, offering clear insights into the Kpandai election annulment, NPP’s arguments, and broader lessons for Ghana’s democracy.

Analysis

Background of the High Court Ruling

The Commercial Division of the High Court in Tamale nullified Matthew Nyindam’s victory in the Kpandai constituency for the 2024 parliamentary elections. The court ordered a rerun, prompting Nyindam to file an application with Ghana’s Supreme Court seeking to annul the judgment. At the heart of the dispute is the NDC’s original election petition, which NPP claims was filed outside the mandatory 21-day statutory period following the publication of results in the official gazette.

NPP’s Core Argument on Jurisdiction

Gary Nimako Marfo emphasized that the High Court erred fundamentally by assuming jurisdiction over the petition. Under Ghanaian law, specifically Constitutional Instrument (CI) 128 regulating public elections, petitioners must file within 21 days after the Electoral Commission’s gazette declaration of results. Nimako Marfo stated the NDC petition was lodged on January 25—clearly beyond this window—rendering the entire process void ab initio.

“Matthew Nyindam has suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice before the court, and the Supreme Court must correct this injustice,” Nimako Marfo declared. He argued the High Court should not have entertained, heard, or judged the matter at all due to this procedural flaw.

Implications for Electoral Integrity

This miscarriage of justice in Nyindam case highlights the rigid enforcement of timelines in election disputes. Ghana’s Supreme Court, as the final arbiter under Article 64 of the 1992 Constitution, holds authority to review such High Court decisions for errors of law, including jurisdictional overreach.

Summary

NPP’s Gary Nimako Marfo defends Kpandai MP Matthew Nyindam against a High Court annulment of his 2024 election win, citing an out-of-time NDC petition filed on January 25. The party awaits Supreme Court intervention to rectify what it calls a substantial miscarriage of justice, arguing the Tamale High Court lacked jurisdiction. Key quote: Supreme Court must “right this kind” of wrong.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Political Parties and Candidates

Aspiring MPs and parties should meticulously track gazette publication dates. Use legal calendars to ensure petitions or responses fall within the 21-day window. Consult election lawyers immediately post-results to avoid untimely election petition pitfalls.

For Voters and Observers

Monitor gazette notices via the Electoral Commission’s website. Understand that procedural lapses can nullify substantive claims, emphasizing the need for vigilant oversight in constituency battles like Kpandai.

Documentation Best Practices

Maintain timestamped records of all filings. In Ghana, affidavits must accompany petitions, served on respondents within timelines—failure invites dismissal.

Points of Caution

• Strict Timelines: Ghana’s courts dismiss late petitions without mercy, regardless of merit.
• Jurisdictional Risks: High Courts cannot hear time-barred matters; appeals escalate quickly to Supreme Court.
• Public Statements: Party spokespersons like Nimako Marfo must balance advocacy with legal precision to avoid contempt risks.
• Media Influence: Platforms like Joy FM amplify cases—ensure facts align with verifiable records.

Comparison

Similar Ghanaian Election Cases

This echoes the 2020 Techiman South case, where Supreme Court reviewed constituency disputes, and the 2013 Akim Oda ruling dismissed a petition for procedural defects. Unlike Nyindam’s jurisdictional challenge, those focused on vote irregularities but underscore consistent 21-day enforcement under CI 128.

Vs. Regional Benchmarks

In Nigeria, election tribunals allow 21 days post-declaration, mirroring Ghana. Kenya’s 14-day rule (per Constitution Article 87) shows variance, but all prioritize timelines to stabilize governance post-polls.

Legal Implications

Ghana’s Election Petition Framework

Article 64(1) of the 1992 Constitution vests original jurisdiction in the High Court for parliamentary election disputes. However, Supreme Court supervisory powers under Article 132 allow quashing for errors like assuming jurisdiction over time-barred petitions. CI 128, Rule 8, explicitly states: “A petition shall be filed within twenty-one days after the publication of the result.”

Potential Outcomes

If upheld, Supreme Court could reinstate Nyindam’s seat, averting rerun costs. Precedent from Samia Nkrumah v. EC (2013) affirms dismissal of late filings. Non-compliance risks contempt or sanctions, reinforcing procedural sanctity in Ghana parliamentary election laws.

Broader Electoral Reforms

Cases like this prompt calls for digital gazette tracking, but current law demands manual vigilance.

Conclusion

The Nyindam case exemplifies how a single procedural misstep—an untimely petition—can trigger a substantial miscarriage of justice, as NPP argues. With Gary Nimako Marfo’s compelling defense, the Supreme Court’s pending hearing on the Kpandai MP’s appeal could restore electoral fairness. This saga educates on Ghana’s robust yet unforgiving petition system, ensuring democracy’s guardrails remain intact. Stay tuned as the apex court deliberates, potentially reshaping Kpandai’s representation.

FAQ