Legal scholar and governance advocate, Professor Stephen Kweku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has raised concerns over the Electoral Commission’s (EC) decision to hold a by-election in Kpandai on 30th December, 2025, describing the move as premature and constitutionally problematic.
In a detailed commentary posted on Facebook, the US-based law professor cautioned that proceeding with the by-election before the Court of Appeal rules on the validity of the incumbent MP’s election risks creating what he calls “avoidable chaos” and “competing mandates.”
Professor Asare outlined a scenario in which a new MP could be elected on 30th December, only for the Court of Appeal—scheduled to deliver its judgment on 3rd January, 2026—to reverse the High Court decision that declared the seat vacant.
“Imagine that the poll is held and a new candidate emerges victorious,” he wrote. “Now imagine that, just four days later, the Court of Appeal reverses the High Court and affirms that the incumbent was validly elected. What would we be left with?”
According to him, such a situation would leave Parliament with “two competing mandates”—one MP elected in the 2024 general elections whose seat was never lawfully vacant, and another elected in a by-election “that should never have happened.”
He warned that such an outcome would distort constitutional order and place Parliament in an impossible position over who should rightfully occupy the seat.
Prof. Asare stressed that Ghana’s Constitution is clear on how parliamentary vacancies must be determined. Article 99 requires the full judicial challenge process—including appeals—to be completed before a seat can be deemed vacant.
“A parliamentary seat becomes vacant only after the full judicial process has run its course. The Clerk and the EC must respect this safeguard, not override it,” he said.
He argued that concerns about delays in judicial proceedings cannot justify sidestepping constitutional procedure.
“The cure for delay is procedural reform—not institutional shortcuts that manufacture constitutional crises.”
The legal expert dismissed claims that the EC’s decision follows the precedent set in the Gyakye Quayson by-election.
“This is false,” he stated.
He argued that the Assin North by-election stemmed from a Supreme Court order—an order from which there was no further appeal—rather than the original High Court ruling. That distinction, he explained, makes the current situation fundamentally different.
“Indeed, the High Court decision was on appeal when the Supreme Court intervened,” he noted, describing that earlier intervention as “constitutionally unsound.”
Prof. Asare questioned the urgency behind scheduling the by-election just weeks before the Court of Appeal’s decision.
“There is no constitutional justification for it,” he said. “Until the Article 99 appeal process has concluded, the High Court’s judgment is provisional, not final, and cannot trigger a by-election.”
He warned that moving ahead prematurely could erode legitimacy, spark unnecessary litigation, and create national confusion.
“The cost of waiting is minimal,” he argued. “The cost of acting prematurely is national confusion, competing mandates, and avoidable constitutional disorder.”
Professor Asare urged state institutions to uphold constitutional order rather than prioritise speed.
“When the law has already designed a safe, orderly pathway, rushing to cut corners is not efficiency—it is recklessness,” he said.
“Our institutions must resist the temptation to ‘do corner fast’ at the expense of the Constitution. We deserve order, not expediency.”