Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the University of Ghana School of Law, Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, has argued that Parliament should have allowed Kpandai Member of Parliament, Matthew Nyindam, to continue occupying his seat while all legal appeals arising from the High Court ruling were being pursued.
Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile programme on Saturday, December 20, Prof Appiagyei-Atua said the parliamentary response to the High Court decision failed to fully appreciate the legal implications of the pending appeals.
He explained that although the Speaker of Parliament relied on the mandatory seven-day stay period following the judgment, the matter had not been conclusively settled because it had moved beyond the High Court.
“The Speaker made a ruling referring to the mandatory seven-day stay, which was respected by Parliament, but the matter had been taken to the Court of Appeal and the NPP has proceeded to the Supreme Court for that decision of the High Court to be quashed,” he stated.
According to him, once the appellate process had been triggered, the status quo should have been maintained until the courts had exhausted the matter.
He stressed that this approach would have been consistent with constitutional practice and respect for due process.
“I think that here the matter should have stayed, and the Member of Parliament, Matthew Nyindam, should have been allowed to stay in his seat,” Prof Appiagyei-Atua said.
His comments add to growing legal criticism of how the Kpandai parliamentary dispute has been handled, particularly following the Supreme Court’s decision to suspend all preparations for a rerun election.
The apex court has halted the Electoral Commission’s processes pending a final determination of the case, underscoring the view of several legal experts that actions taken before the conclusion of appeals risk deepening institutional and constitutional uncertainty.