Director of Legal Affairs of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Gary Nimako Marfo, has urged the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to abandon any plans to seek a review of the Supreme Court’s decision that set aside the Tamale High Court ruling on the Kpandai parliamentary seat.
Speaking to the media after the judgment, Majority Chief Whip Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor indicated that the party would await the full reasons for the ruling, expected on February 6, 2026, and consider applying for a review if dissatisfied.
However, reacting to the comments, Mr. Nimako Marfo dismissed the prospect of a successful review, arguing that the Supreme Court’s 4–1 majority decision leaves little room for reversal.
“With a 4-1 decision, can you come for a review? In review, they will add two. The four will not change their position. It will be 4-3 in the unlikely event, so I think they should just forget about it,” he stated.
On Wednesday, January 28, the Supreme Court of Ghana quashed the Tamale High Court judgment that annulled the parliamentary election results for the Kpandai Constituency in the Northern Region, effectively halting the Electoral Commission’s planned rerun.
The apex court delivered its decision by a 4–1 majority, with Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, who presided as President of the Bench, dissenting. The majority comprised Justices Yonny Kulendi, Amadu Tanko, Samuel Asiedu, and Henry Kwofie.
The Court granted an application for certiorari filed by the NPP Member of Parliament for Kpandai, Matthew Nyindam, who challenged the High Court’s jurisdiction to nullify his election.
Mr. Nyindam had argued that the parliamentary election petition filed by NDC candidate Daniel Nsala Wakpal was statute-barred, having been filed outside the mandatory 21-day period. He maintained that the election results were gazetted on December 24, 2024, making the petition filed on January 25, 2025, invalid.
His legal team further contended that all consequential orders issued by the High Court, including the annulment of the election and the directive for a rerun, were null and void, thereby justifying the Supreme Court’s intervention.
