The Minority in Parliament has accused the Tamale High Court of stalling the appeal process in the Kpandai election dispute after presiding judge, Justice Emmanuel Bart Plange Brew, failed to issue the written judgment that overturned the constituency’s 2024 parliamentary results.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin noted that the judge had pledged in open court to deliver the detailed ruling on Friday, November 28, 2025 — a deadline that passed without explanation. The Minority voiced its concerns in a statement released on Monday, December 1, 2025.
The caucus insists the written judgment is essential for Mathew Nyindam, who was declared winner of the 2024 Kpandai parliamentary race, to properly contest the decision at the Court of Appeal.
Justice Plange Brew last week nullified the entire parliamentary results in Kpandai and directed that a new election be held within 30 days. The ruling immediately raised alarm among the Minority, which questioned the legal justification for annulling all 152 polling stations when the petition before the court challenged only 41.
The Minority says its unease has grown as the judge has neither provided the written reasoning behind his ruling nor responded to two formal requests filed by Nyindam’s legal team on November 24 and 28 seeking a certified copy of the judgment.
“This is no longer a mere delay. It is paralysis of the appellate process by the very court whose order is under challenge,” Afenyo-Markin declared.
He emphasized that without the written ruling, Nyindam cannot pursue his appeal, the Electoral Commission cannot implement the 30-day directive, and the public cannot evaluate the constitutional grounds for voiding an entire constituency’s vote.
Afenyo-Markin cautioned that the situation erodes transparency, due process, and judicial credibility, particularly because the decision alters the composition of Parliament and strips a sitting MP of his mandate without offering the legal justification.
He called on Justice Plange Brew to promptly release the full judgment and address the pending applications, stressing that “our constitutional democracy cannot function on unexplained directives.”
Nyindam has already filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay of execution of the High Court’s order, but both processes remain frozen until the written judgment is made available.
Leave a Reply