A private legal practitioner, Kwame Adofo, has argued that the National Democratic Congress’ (NDC) chances of successfully seeking a review of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Kpandai parliamentary election are very slim, as the outcome of the case was based largely on technical legal grounds.
According to him, the likelihood of any member of the Supreme Court panel changing his or her position in a review application is extremely low.
Mr. Adofo made the remarks during an interview on Adekyee Mu Nsem, a morning show on Ahotor 92.3 FM in Accra, hosted by Citizen Kofi Owusu.
He emphasized that time limits are critical in the filing of legal briefs and election petitions, stressing that failure to adhere strictly to statutory timelines cannot be excused under the law.
“Time is critical in filing your briefs, and negligence in failing to meet timelines cannot save you. That is the position of the law,” he stated.
In a related development, Kpandai Member of Parliament, Matthew Nyindam, has revealed that he went to the Supreme Court fully prepared for any outcome, despite being confident that he had lawfully won the 2024 parliamentary election.
The New Patriotic Party (NPP) legislator said he entered the courtroom with uncertainty, faith, and acceptance, knowing that the final decision was beyond his control.
“You know something, obviously I didn’t know the outcome, to be honest with you. I was prepared for any outcome,” he said.
His comments follow the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a High Court ruling that had annulled his election. In a 4–1 majority judgment, the apex court upheld Mr. Nyindam’s application and restored his mandate as Kpandai MP.
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court acted without jurisdiction after Mr. Nyindam invoked its supervisory powers, arguing that the election petition against him was filed outside the constitutionally mandated timeline.
Reflecting on the hours leading up to the ruling, Mr. Nyindam said his emotions were influenced by recent political developments elsewhere.
“Because you are in opposition and looking at what happened in Tamale, I wasn’t too sure,” he said.
Despite this, he maintained that he had always known he won the election, dismissing claims of irregularities raised in the petition.
“I knew very well that I won this election,” he stated.
Mr. Nyindam said he relied on faith as he prepared to appear before the court.
“I told my God that I have nobody to speak for me. I have trusted in God for some time now, and I hope and pray that when the judges speak, God will speak through them,” he said.
He reiterated that election laws clearly provide a 21-day window for filing petitions after results are gazetted.
“Although the law is clear that you have 21 days to file a petition, after that period, you lose that opportunity,” he explained.
Mr. Nyindam referenced an earlier unanimous Supreme Court decision which affirmed December 24, 2024, as the official gazette date confirmed by the Electoral Commission.
“There was no dissenting opinion. It was unanimous,” he noted.
Based on that ruling, he argued that the petition filed on January 25, 2025, fell outside the constitutionally permitted timeframe.
“Looking at the application filed on January 25, 2025, it was clear that if we want to uphold the dignity and sanity of our courts, this verdict had to come,” he said.
Despite the legal clarity, Mr. Nyindam admitted he still had lingering doubts ahead of the judgment.
“But in this country, considering what happened in Tamale, I wasn’t too sure,” he added.