On January 28, 2026, the Supreme Court will rule on whether or not to overturn the High Court’s decision that invalidated the 2024 Kpandai parliamentary results in the Northern Region.
The five-member panel, which included Justices Gabriel Pwamang, Omoro Tanko, Yonny Kulendi, Samuel Asiedu, and Henry Anthony Kwofie, heard arguments on a request to use its supervisory jurisdiction to overturn the Tamale High Court’s November 24, 2025 ruling.
Gary Nimako Marfo, the applicant’s attorney, told the court that the motion, which was submitted on December 1, 2025, asked the court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in accordance with Article 132 of the Constitution, Section 5 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) as amended, and Section 61 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16).
Mr. Marfo contended that by assuming jurisdiction to consider the parliamentary election petition submitted on January 25, 2025, the High Court made a legal jurisdictional error.
He informed the court that the Kpandai election results were gazetted by the Electoral Commission on December 24, 2024, and that the applicable statutes and Article 99 of the Constitution stipulated a 21-day window for filing an election petition.
“The law provides the timelines within which a petition can be filed and before the High Court can be grounded with jurisdiction and that is 21 days after gazette of the official results,” he stated.
He claims that the trial judge should have confirmed his jurisdiction before hearing the case because the petition was filed after the deadline.
Mr. Marfo further argued that the High Court violated Section 18 of PNDC Law 284 by assuming jurisdiction outside the statute’s obligatory scope.
He stated that the November 24, 2025, ruling should be overturned because “this error is so apparent on the face of the record, and this court cannot close its eyes to it.”
Sika Abla Addo, the first interested party’s attorney, informed the court that the applicant was selectively depending on gazette notifications in order to oppose the application.
She stated, “Our submission is that the applicant is cherry picking gazette notifications.”
She explained that the two gazettes were dated December 24, 2024, and January 6, 2025, and she contended that the January 6 gazette ought to be given priority.
“The time limitations provided by Section 18 only refer to gazette. The question is which gazette are we referring to,” she said.
“It was on the back of this that the court assumed jurisdiction and proceeded to hear the matter and delivered a judgement,” she said, adding that the High Court was satisfied that there had been a gazette notification on January 6, 2025.
Source: newsthemegh.com