The Minority in Parliament has accused the Tamale High Court of obstructing the appeal process in the Kpandai election dispute after the presiding judge, Justice Emmanuel Bart Plange Brew, failed to release the written judgment that nullified the constituency’s 2024 parliamentary results.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said the judge had promised in open court to deliver the full, reasoned judgment on Friday, 28 November 2025 — a deadline that has passed without explanation. The Minority raised its concerns in a statement issued on Monday, December 1, 2025.
According to the Minority, the written judgment is critical for Mathew Nyindam, the declared winner of the 2024 Kpandai parliamentary contest, to properly challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal.
Justice Plange Brew last week annulled the entire parliamentary results of Kpandai and ordered a fresh election within 30 days. The decision immediately triggered concerns within the Minority, which questioned the legal basis for cancelling all 152 polling stations when the petition before the court challenged only 41.
The Minority says its worries have deepened as the judge has neither provided the written reasons for his ruling nor responded to two formal requests submitted by Nyindam’s lawyers on November 24 and 28 for 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,” the Minority Leader said.
He stressed that without the written judgment, Nyindam cannot prosecute his appeal, the Electoral Commission cannot act on the 30-day directive, and the public cannot assess the constitutional basis for voiding an entire constituency’s vote.
Afenyo-Markin warned that the situation undermines transparency, due process and the integrity of the judiciary, especially because the ruling affects the composition of Parliament and strips a sitting MP of his mandate without providing the legal rationale.
He urged Justice Plange Brew to immediately publish the full judgment and respond to the pending applications, arguing that “our constitutional democracy cannot function on unexplained directives.”
Nyindam has filed a notice of appeal and applied for a stay of execution of the High Court’s order, but both actions remain stalled until the written ruling is released.