Speaker of Parliament Alban Kingsford Sumana Bagbin has ruled that Mathew Nyindam will continue to serve as Member of Parliament for the Kpandai Constituency until December 1, 2025, despite a High Court order directing a rerun of the 2024 parliamentary election.
Addressing the House, Speaker Bagbin explained that Parliament’s Legal Services Office had been formally notified on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, of an order issued by the Tamale High Court directing the Electoral Commission to conduct a rerun of the Kpandai parliamentary election within 30 days.
The order stems from an election petition filed by Daniel Nsala Wapal, who challenged the declaration of Nyindam as MP-elect for the constituency in the December 7, 2024, polls.
According to the Speaker, the immediate effect of the ruling could be interpreted to suggest that Nyindam’s election had been nullified and that the seat had become vacant. However, he stressed that such an interpretation would contradict Ghana’s procedural and constitutional framework governing High Court judgments and their enforcement.
Court of Appeal Rules
To clarify the matter, Speaker Bagbin invoked the provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules, specifically Rule 27(3) of CI 19 as amended by CI 132. The rule stipulates that “there shall be a stay of execution of the judgement or decision appealed against for a period of seven days immediately following the giving of notice of the judgement or decision.”
He emphasized that this seven-day stay is automatic, mandatory, and applies to all High Court decisions that are capable of being appealed. Citing judicial precedent, Speaker Bagbin referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mensah v Ghana Commercial Bank (2005-2006), which held that any attempt to execute a High Court judgment before the expiration of the seven-day statutory stay is “premature and void.”
He also pointed to the Court of Appeal decision in Clenham Construction Ltd v Falcon Crest (April 7, 2022), where the court reaffirmed that the purpose of the statutory stay is to protect the rights of the party against whom judgment has been entered by allowing enough time to consider whether to appeal.
The Speaker went further to quote Justice Ban Jeyi’s interpretation of Rule 27(3), which underscores that the law intends to give the “vanquished” party time to “ponder over and scrutinise the bona fides” of the judgment before deciding on the next legal steps.
Standard Legal Protection
Speaker Bagbin stressed that this legal protection is standard and applies regardless of the nature of the High Court’s decision. With the Tamale High Court ruling delivered on November 24, 2025, the Speaker said the mandatory seven-day stay remains in effect until December 1, 2025.
“During this period, the High Court’s ruling cannot form the basis for the Speaker to instruct the Clerk to notify the Electoral Commission that the Kpandai seat is vacant.”
Speaker of Parliament Alban Kingsford Sumana Bagbin
He added that should Nyindam choose to file an appeal or submit an application for a stay of execution under Rule 27(1), an additional suspension could come into effect, further preventing the enforcement of the High Court ruling until such applications are determined. This, he said, is designed to ensure that the subject matter of an appeal is not altered or prejudiced while the appeal process is ongoing.
Speaker Bagbin also drew the House’s attention to Article 105 of the 1992 Constitution, which stipulates that a person who sits or votes in Parliament “knowing or having reasonable grounds for knowing” that they are not entitled to do so commits an offence.
He described this provision as penal in nature and noted that it requires careful consideration before any action is taken to bar a sitting MP from the Chamber.
Given the legal context, the Speaker concluded that it would be “premature to say that Honourable Mathew Nyindam is disqualified from entering and participating in the proceedings of the House because this period still falls within the seven-day mandatory stay of execution of the order.”
He stressed that the High Court’s order was not declaratory but executive, meaning it does not by itself terminate an MP’s status until due process is completed.
He added that Nyindam was therefore right to have been in the Chamber the previous day and to have fully participated in parliamentary proceedings. His clarification appeared aimed at ensuring that parliamentary procedure remained aligned with constitutional safeguards and that decisions involving elected representatives are not rushed in a manner that undermines due process.
The Majority Caucus had earlier insisted that Nyindam’s membership had ceased the moment the Court ordered the rerun election. However, the Speaker’s ruling placed clear emphasis on the need to respect both the constitutional and judicial frameworks governing parliamentary tenure, ensuring that the legal rights of all parties—including those of an MP whose election is being challenged—are preserved until the law allows otherwise.
READ ALSO: Mahama Launches Vegetable Development Project to Make Ghana a Net Producer
