Lawyers for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have reportedly filed a review application at the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the apex court’s January 28, 2026 decision that reinstated New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament (MP) Matthew Nyindam as the legitimate representative for the Kpandai constituency in the Northern Region.
The review application is understood to have been submitted approximately one week ago. As of the time of reporting, neither Nyindam and his legal team nor the Electoral Commission (EC) and its lawyers had been served with copies of the filing, raising early procedural questions about the pace of the process.
The Supreme Court, in a 4 to 1 majority decision presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang, had set aside a Tamale High Court judgment that annulled the 2024 Kpandai parliamentary election and ordered a rerun. Justices Yonny Kulendi, Amadu Tanko, Samuel Asiedu, and Henry Kwofie formed the majority, with Justice Pwamang as the sole dissenter. The ruling restored Nyindam’s seat following months of uncertainty after the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Honourable Alban Kingsford Somana Bagbin, had earlier declared it vacant.
The NDC’s review filing is only one part of a brewing legal controversy. Reports indicate that Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie is allegedly planning to empanel an entirely new seven-member panel to hear the review, retaining only Justice Pwamang, who dissented in the original decision, as presiding judge. If accurate, this would represent a fundamental departure from established Supreme Court practice.
Under the long-standing convention governing review proceedings in Ghana’s apex court, when the Supreme Court is invited to review its own decision, the Chief Justice adds two additional judges to the original panel, producing a seven-member bench that includes the four justices who formed the original majority. The logic is institutional continuity: the expanded panel can consider whether the original decision was wrong, but those who made it remain present to defend their reasoning.
Replacing all four majority justices while retaining only the dissenter would, critics argue, effectively pre-determine the outcome. With the original decision standing at 4 to 1, the closest an orthodox seven-member review panel could come to overturning it would be a 4 to 3 split, which would leave the original judgment intact. A wholly reconstituted panel, however, could produce a fresh majority without any of the justices who authored the prior ruling.
Legal observers say the reported plan, if executed, is likely to attract court actions directly challenging the Chief Justice’s power to constitute review panels, and could trigger broader debate about the independence of the judiciary at a sensitive political moment with general elections due in 2026.
The Kpandai case has moved through several stages of litigation since November 2025, when the Tamale High Court nullified the 2024 parliamentary results and ordered a full rerun, citing irregularities at 41 of 152 polling stations. The Supreme Court’s January ruling halted that process and returned Nyindam to his seat, but the NDC’s review application now reopens the question of who legitimately represents the constituency.
