๐๐ก ๐จ๐ฃ๐๐๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ก ๐ง๐๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐จ๐ฅ๐ง ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐๐๐ฅ๐ก๐๐ก๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ง๐จ๐๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ก
Justice Emmanuel Bart Plange Brew’s Failure to Deliver Promised Judgement Raises Serious Concerns About Judicial Process
1. As Minority Leader, I must express my profound concern regarding the conduct of proceedings in the Kpandai election petition presided over by His Lordship Justice Emmanuel Bart Plange Brew.
2. On 24th November 2025, the Minority Caucus issued a statement clarifying the facts surrounding the disputed Tamale High Court judgement purporting to nullify the entire Kpandai parliamentary election result. In that statement, we expressed our commitment to the rule of law and our belief that the appellate process would restore confidence in the democratic outcome delivered by the voters of Kpandai.
3. Six days later, that confidence has been further shaken not only by serious doubts about the lawfulness and constitutionality of the order itself but by the courtโs failure to deliver the promised written judgement that would allow the appellate process to function.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ๐บ๐
4. Justice Plange Brew issued a shocking order purporting to nullify the parliamentary mandate of Hon Mathew Nyindam, who won with 27,947 votes against 24,213; a margin of 3,734 votes. The petitioner challenged only 41 out of 152 polling stations, disputing approximately 500 votes. Yet the court purported to nullify the entire constituency result and ordered a fresh election within 30 days.
5. The Minority Caucus has serious doubts about the lawfulness and constitutionality of this decision. How does a court purport to nullify an entire constituency election when the challenge concerned only 41 polling stations? What legal or constitutional basis permits such a sweeping remedy for such a limited complaint?
6. These are not rhetorical questions. They demand answers. Yet His Lordship has not met the deadline he publicly announced for delivering the written judgement that would provide those answers.
7. In open court, His Lordship stated that his full, reasoned judgement would be ready on Friday, 28th November 2025.
8. That date has passed.
9. The judgement has not been released.
10. No explanation has been provided.
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐พ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฑ๐ด๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ป ๐๐ด๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ
11. The situation is now beyond procedural irregularityโit borders on judicial obstruction of the appellate process.
12. On 24th November 2025, lawyers for Hon Mathew Nyindam (Isang & Law Chambers) wrote to the Registrar of the High Court, Tamale, formally applying for a certified copy of the judgement delivered on 24th November 2025, stating that they would pay the necessary costs.
13. When that application yielded no response and no judgement, the legal team wrote again on 28th November 2025; the very date His Lordship had promised the judgement would be ready. In that second letter, Hon Nyindamโs lawyers informed the court that they had been reliably informed that signed copies of the judgement would be ready for collection on 28th November 2025 at 2pm. However, as of 2pm, they had not been furnished with the judgement. The lawyers specifically noted that there are consequential orders in the judgement which have serious implications, thereby putting their client in distress.
14. Despite these two formal applications and despite the courtโs own deadline, Hon Mathew Nyindamโs legal representatives have received nothing. No judgement. No explanation. No acknowledgement.
15. This is not mere delay. This is paralysis of the appellate process by the very court whose order is under challenge.
๐ช๐ต๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ช๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป ๐๐๐ฑ๐ด๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐
16. The failure to deliver the promised judgement is not merely a procedural inconvenience. It prevents Hon Mathew Nyindam from preparing a meaningful appeal against an order purporting to strip him of his parliamentary mandate. It prevents the public from understanding how a court can purport to nullify 152 polling stations when only 41 were challenged. It prevents constitutional scrutiny of a troubling decision that appears to lack legal foundation.
17. When a court purports to exercise power affecting parliamentary representation, reducing the NPP Minorityโs strength and favouring the governing partyโs position, it must demonstrate the highest standards of judicial discipline and transparency. The failure to deliver a promised judgement on time, despite two formal written requests from legal representatives, creates the unfortunate impression that the reasons supporting the decision may not have been fully developed when the order was pronounced.
18. This perception undermines public confidence in the judicial process and raises the following critical questions:
i. How is Hon Mathew Nyindam expected to appeal an order purporting to nullify his mandate without access to the written reasoning, despite two formal applications for the judgement?
ii. How is the Electoral Commission expected to comply with a court order purporting to impose a 30-day timeline when the court cannot meet its own deadline or respond to legitimate requests from legal practitioners?
iii. How can the public maintain confidence when an order of questionable constitutionality remains unexplained and unjustified, despite repeated applications for its release?
iv. How is the Minority expected to robustly discharge its duties when its numerical strength has been reduced by a judicial order lacking published reasoning or demonstrable constitutional authority?
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐น๐น๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
19. Backed by the Minority Caucus, Hon Nyindam promptly filed a notice of appeal and an application for a stay of execution of the order purporting to nullify the election result. We maintain our commitment to the rule of law. However, that commitment presupposes a functioning appellate system. Without the written judgement which Hon Nyindamโs lawyers have now requested twice in writing the appellate process is paralysed.
20. I therefore call upon His Lordship to immediately publish the full written judgement and respond to the legitimate applications made by legal representatives on 24th and 28th November 2025. Our constitutional democracy cannot function on unexplained directives. Justice cannot be done or be seen to be done when a court issues a constitutionally questionable order affecting parliamentary representation, ignores formal applications for the written reasons, and fails to provide timely written reasons purporting to justify that order.
๐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ
21. The integrity of the judicial process requires transparent, timely, and reasoned justification of orders especially when those orders purport to nullify the clear electoral choice of an entire constituency based on challenges to only 41 polling stations, alter the composition of Parliament itself, and create serious distress for the affected Member of Parliament through non-disclosure of consequential orders.
22. The people of Ghana deserve better. The people of Kpandai deserve better. Hon Mathew Nyindam, who won their mandate decisively and whose lawyers have written twice requesting the judgement, deserves better. Our constitutional order demands better.
๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐
๐๐จ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐ผ๐ก๐๐ญ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ฌ๐๐ข๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ผ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ค-๐๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฃ,
๐๐๐ฃ๐ค๐ง๐๐ฉ๐ฎ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ง & ๐๐ ๐๐ค๐ง ๐๐๐๐ช๐ฉ๐ช
