In an interview with Adom News and in an official statement, Mr. Saparku clarified that the protest, which saw a number of NDC members and sympathizers take to the streets, was neither sanctioned nor organised by the constituency executives.

“The leadership of the National Democratic Congress in Kpandai wishes to state, for the record, that the party has a recognized leadership structure at the constituency level, and this must be respected at all times,” he said. “The party is not aware of, nor has it sanctioned, any demonstration within the constituency. Any action taken outside the knowledge and approval of the Constituency Executive Committee does not represent the position of the party.”

He stressed that the increasing disregard for constituency executives and established party structures must stop immediately. “We understand the concerns of our members, but as constituency executives, we did not organise or endorse the protest. The action was taken by some aggrieved individuals on their own,” he added.

Mr. Saparku urged party supporters to remain calm and channel their grievances through peaceful and appropriate means. He also called on security agencies and the public not to attribute the demonstrators’ actions to the official leadership of the NDC in Kpandai.

The Supreme Court recently nullified the planned rerun elections in the constituency, a decision that has sparked debate and mixed reactions among political actors and supporters.

The constituency secretary reaffirmed the NDC’s commitment to democratic principles and internal unity, noting that the party leadership is focused on strengthening coordination and discipline at the local level.

READ ALSO:

• Asantehene officially informed of Bawumia’s election as NPP flagbearer
• Galamsey: NAIMOS halts reckless excavation by major highway at Akyem Techiman
• GPRTU Taskforce arrests 17 drivers in Amasaman over unapproved fares

Speaking on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen show, Mr Nyindam emphasized his respect for the rule of law, noting that he cannot prevent the NDC from taking additional legal steps if they choose to do so.

“If the NDC has any other measure they want to take, they can take it. The law works, and we all abide by it,” he stated.

He further noted that the Supreme Court’s 4–1 majority decision clearly reinstates him as the duly elected MP and that the court is expected to formally notify Parliament and the Clerk ahead of the resumption of parliamentary sittings.

“The full ruling will be out by February 6, and Parliament resumes on the 3rd. The Supreme Court will officially communicate its decision for me to resume my parliamentary duties,” he added.

The Supreme Court overturned a Tamale High Court ruling that had annulled Mr Nyindam’s election as MP for Kpandai, thereby confirming the validity of his victory in the December 7, 2024 polls.

The apex court granted a certiorari application filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) MP, challenging the High Court’s jurisdiction to nullify the election. Full reasons for the judgment are expected on February 6, 2026.

READ ALSO:

• Kpandai constituents voted for me and expect me to serve full term – Matthew Nyindam
• Ghana’s housing deficit hits over 1.8 million – Minister
• NPP race: Eastern Region contest will be tough, but… – Dr. Kingsley Agyemang [Listen]
• Kpandai verdict a warning to lawyers on filing dates – Kpebu

He noted that, following the Supreme Court’s decision, the four affected Members of Parliament are entitled to return to Parliament and participate in legislative proceedings.

“In the face of this decision, he is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court,” he said in an exclusive interview with JoyNews on Tuesday, November 12.

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker’s declaration was unconstitutional, with Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo affirming on November 12, 2024, that the declaration could not stand.

Justice Atuguba explained that compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling is mandatory, warning that failure to adhere could lead to contempt charges.

He highlighted that such contempt is a serious offense, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years without the option of a fine.

He added that it goes along with a disqualification from holding public office for a decade.

“It is not necessarily 10 years, you must just suffer a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years. Not only that, 10 years disqualification of holding public office and if you are a president, you are liable to removal,” he said.

While Mr Atuguba insists the Speaker must comply with the ruling, South Dayi MP Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor maintains that Parliament itself must formally endorse any Supreme Court decision.

He argued that implementation requires the involvement of all 275 Members of Parliament.

Speaking to JoyNews, Mr Dafeamekpor stated that Parliament, as a collective body, must deliberate and decide how to enact the Supreme Court’s directive, asserting that it cannot proceed solely on the basis of a court ruling.

ALSO READ:

• Respect Supreme court ruling on vacant seats – AG to Parliament

• Learn to respect the authority of the Supreme Court – KT Hammond to Speaker

On October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court temporarily reversed the Speaker’s previous decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant, permitting the affected MPs to retain their seats for now.

Following this ruling, Speaker of Parliament Rt. Hon. Alban Bagbin adjourned the House indefinitely, citing an insufficient number of members in the Chamber to conduct official business.

This adjournment has fueled further debate around the tensions within Parliament and the potential impact on pending legislative matters.

The session, originally scheduled to address the revocation of L.I. 2462, saw both New Patriotic Party (NPP) and National Democratic Congress (NDC) members ready to resume their roles.

However, the NPP caucus staged a walk-out amid disputes over which party should occupy the majority side, given the NDC’s apparent numerical advantage following the Speaker’s declaration of vacant seats.

In an interview on Citi News, Mr. Sulemana voiced criticism of the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating that it infringes upon Parliament’s autonomy.

He expressed concern that such judicial intervention sets a troubling precedent, potentially paving the way for future external challenges to Parliament’s decisions based on political convenience.

“This act infringes on our rights as parliament…the Supreme Court must be careful in making such decisions because for me, judiciary independence is very important and where we are getting to, we would need to be very cautious”, he stated.

He also argued that the attitude of the NPP displayed a sense of entitlement and a reluctance to acknowledge their changing role in Parliament.

ALSO READ:

What due diligence did you conduct before appointing YASARKO to print…

NEIP CEO blasts NPP MPs/PC’s not believing in party’s chances in…

The Speaker, who is a lawyer, criticised the Supreme Court for ruling  that Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act was unlawful.

Speaking to the media in Parliament last Friday, he questioned various judgments delivered by the apex court in cases involving Parliament.

“There are a lot of things that we do that they don’t know about and so many of the decisions they have given are actually based on erroneous understanding of some factual situation in the House,” Mr Bagbin noted.

He continued, “I have had the opportunity of meeting some of them and drawing their attention to the fact that these findings in your judgment or ruling do not hold in the House.

“We don’t do things that way, but it is because of the lack of our presence when those cases are being held, and I was referring to this Manan case which you referred to about the striking out of Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act as one of them,” he added.

The Speaker said he was supposed to be a party in that case, which was against him and the Attorney General, but was not served and therefore had no knowledge of it until after the judgment.

“A copy was given to me and I took my time and read through it. In fact, I was shocked when one of the reasons for the ruling was that there was no debate on that proposed amendment, and that it was in contravention of Article 106.

“But usually, you all know that if at the committee level, the committee is unanimous with an issue and you bring it to the floor and the non-members of the committee don’t have any issue with it, there is no need for you to debate it,” he asserted.

Corruption

On corruption, the Speaker admitted that corruption in Ghana was not only a perception, but also real, indicating, “We all agree that it is systemic corruption.”

“The only way you can fight systemic corruption is to change the system. That is how you fight it, and that is what I am trying to do – to change the system,” he intimated.

The Speaker added, “You change the system in such a way that it will be a disincentive to be corrupt.”

“That is what we are working towards, and so by next year, I am going to work, together with civil society, on how we will legislate to facilitate and regulate the process of campaign financing and funding of campaign by individual candidates – whether as MPs or Assembly Members or Presidential candidates,” he pointed out.

According to him, the nation cannot just leave campaign financing as it is and make election processes also free for all.

“Nobody is asking where they get the money, how they spent it, and nobody cares. Then at the end of the day, the person is supposed to be Father Christmas. That, you know, you are not being realistic, and it is worsening, day in and day out.

“We are going to come out with a law to legislate on this matter, and there is no harm in saying that please, you cannot print coloured Lacoste t-shirts.

“The law can prescribe that and there is a chunk of money that will be saved just by doing that. We can restrict it to only posters. I am just making suggestions,” he stated.

According to the constituency secretary, Stephen Asamoah, the photos in circulation are old photos.

Reports were rife that the party, led by the Assin North District Chief Executive, Charles Ohene Andoh, visited churches at Assin Bereku.

They included Pentecost, Methodist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church among others to thank God for the Supreme Court ruling against the Assin North MP.

Among the entourage was said to be the General Secretary of the NPP, John Boadu, who led a delegation from the party headquarters, the Constituency Chairman, and all other executives.

Some residents, who were angered by the reports, vowed to re-elect the MP should a by-election be held in the area as they are impressed with the performance of the MP so far.

But addressing a press conference at Assin Breku, Mr Asamoah explained the photos were captured in October 2021 during the thanksgiving service of the Assin Fosu MCE, Nicholas Fiifi Baako on his confirmation for the second term.

“The Assin North NPP leadership and the DCE haven’t organised any thanksgiving service to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling against Mr Quayson as speculated on social media and mainstream media,” he stated.

Meanwhile, Mr Andoh is said to have come under a lot of criticisms from members of the NDC at Assin North over the purported report.

The party, led by the Assin North District Chief Executive, Charles Ohene Andoh, visited churches at Assin Bereku, the District Capital of the Assin North Constituency, including Pentecost, Methodist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church among others to thank God for the Supreme Court ruling against the Assin North MP.

Among the entourage was the General Secretary of the NPP, John Boadu, who led a delegation from the party Headquarters, the Municipal Chief Executive for the Assin Foso Municipality; Nicholas Fiifi Bakoe, the Constituency Chairman, and all the Constituency Executives.

Meanwhile, some residents in an interview have condemned the thanksgiving service, adding that they don’t understand why the NPP is in haste when an appeal has been filed and Supreme Court is yet to give its judgment on the matter.

Some residents have vowed to re-elect the MP should a by-election be held in the area as they are impressed with the performance of the MP so far.

Meanwhile, some of the angry residents in the Assin North Constituency also bemoaned how the Constituency has lacked development over the court case.

They mentioned some of the projects he has undertaken including the extension of electricity to most of the villages, the construction of school blocks and health facilities.

Others, they noted, included the provision of boreholes for almost all the villages in the Assin North Constituency, and also the donation of a vehicle to the Assin North Education Directorate.

The Assembly Member for Assin Ankaa/Gangan Electoral Area, Francis Bright Ativi, commended the MP for the good work in the constituency.

According to him, the court case has hindered development in the Assin North Constituency and therefore appealed to the NDC executives to field Mr Quayson again should a by-election come on.

According to President of the House, Ogyeahohoo Yaw Gyebi II, respecting the judgement is the surest way through which “Ghana will continue to be recognised as a country governed by the rule of law and not the rule of men.”

Addressing a meeting in Kumasi, he encouraged aggrieved parties to seek review of the Supreme Court decision and not resort to debates and arguments over same.

On March 9, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that a Deputy Speaker of Parliament can be counted during the formation of a quorum for parliamentary decision-making and participation in voting while presiding.

The Court presided over by Justice Jones Dotse, therefore, affirmed the approval of the 2022 budget without NDC MPs’ participation.

Since that ruling, high-ranking members in the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have expressed dissenting views over the matter.

But Ogyeahohoo Yaw Gyebi II says Parliament and allied stakeholders should hold up to democratic governance, adding that it is “the most preferred for the majority of Ghanaians.”

“The positive effects of democracy far outweigh the weaknesses we observe at times,” he stated.

In a related development, the Essikado-Ketan MP, Joe Ghartey, has implored his colleagues unhappy with the ruling to seek review.

He said the controversies surrounding the judgement are needless since aggrieved parties can always opt for review at the Supreme Court.

The former Deputy Speaker and Minister of Justice indicated that there can be the possibility of a change in the ruling; hence, Members of Parliament who disagree with the current ruling have the opportunity to seek redress.

“There are three institutions of government. Parliament is not the only one among them that is a master of its own rules. The Judiciary is as well.”

“This shouldn’t be an issue at all. If any of the parties disagree with the judgment, they can call for a review, and who knows, the Court may change its mind,” he said.

Majority Leader, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, has cast doubt on a statement from Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin about the Supreme Court’s ruling on Deputy Speakers’ Right to vote.

The Leader, who doubles as Suame Member of Parliament, says he doesn’t want to believe Speaker Bagbin authored the reaction.

In the statement issued on Friday, Mr Bagbin said the Supreme Court’s decision, “is, to say the least, not only an absurdity but a reckless incursion into the remit of Parliament.”

He described the President’s [Nana Akufo-Addo] comment on the Supreme Court ruling about Deputy Speakers’ voting rights as myopic.

In his view, it goes to worsen the tension between the Executive and Parliament.

But, according to the Majority Leader, his conviction that Speaker Bagbin did not author the statement is due to the language that was used.

He explained he has sent messages to Mr Bagbin to ascertain the authenticity but is yet to receive any response.

“I am looking at the language that has been employed, I don’t want to believe that it is from the Speaker.

“I even sent a message inquiring whether this is from him, he hasn’t responded yet. I have always insisted that Deputy Speakers cannot be denied their votes,” he said in an interview with Accra-based TV3.

In a unanimous decision on Wednesday, a seven-member panel of the apex court held that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 103 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution, a Deputy Speaker, who happens to be a Member of Parliament does not lose his right to take part in decision making.

In view of the decision, the passing of the budget on November 30, 2021, in which the First Deputy Speaker, Mr Joe Osei Owusu, counted himself as part of the quorum, was valid.

The court, presided over by Justice Jones Dotse, also struck down Order 109(3) of the Standing Orders of Parliament which prevented a Deputy Speaker presiding from voting, saying it is unconstitutional.

But the Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu, has described the ruling as judicial support for the controversial Electronic Transaction Levy (E-Levy).

Play the audio above:

It said if a member of the party had taken a case to the court and the party had lost, it must learn to accept defeat graciously.

However, it said if the Minority was not ready to respect the decision of the Supreme Court, they should refrain from scandalising the court and also stop running to the court for interpretation of constitutional matters.

“Once you run to the Supreme Court and they deliver their decisions, we should take it as a bitter pill or sweet chocolate. If it is bitter, take it since tomorrow that decision could be an authority for your own cause,” it said.

Don’t breakdown institutions

Addressing the press in Parliament Thursday (March 10, 2022), the Deputy Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, said it was incumbent on political parties to respect the decisions of the highest court of Ghana.

“If the Minority continue to breakdown the institutions of democracy, one day they will come back to cross the bridge and there will be no bridge to cross back home.

“The NDC is destroying everything needed to sustain good governance and is not how to operate a democracy as extremist attacks are not the way to go,” he said.

Respect rule of law

Mr Afenyo-Markin said the New Patriotic Party (NPP) had a tradition of testing the law and resolving issues in the court where the party had difficulties in public discourse.

With the party winning and losing some of the cases, he said in all situations the conduct of the NPP had been respecting the rule of law.

“Unfortunately, for our colleagues anytime they go to court and they lose, they attempt to scandalize the court,” he said.

Case

He cited a 2015 delivery of a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Kojoga Adra against Paa Nii Lamptey and the Attorney-General.

In that case, he said the then Minority contended that those who were holding public offices and were also vying for positions in the NDC amounted to a breach of Article 94 (b) of the Constitution.

“We argued this in the public space and when it did not find favour, we went to the Supreme Court,” he said.

He said the contention of his client, Kojoga Adra, was to the extent that Article 94 (b) had listed certain categories of public servants such as a member of the police, prisons, the armed forces, judiciary, legal, audit service, statistical service, fire services, etc, who were prohibited as ineligible to be Members of Parliament and could also not hold party office.

“So, our contention was that Ghana Highways Authority (GHA) and Ghana Education Service (GES) officials who were contesting for NDC party positions, by parity of reasoning, should also be prohibited because they all came under the public service category.

However, the Supreme Court, in a 7-0 majority decision, ruled unanimously on July 15, 2015, that to the extent that the framers of the Constitution did not include those public servants – GHA and GES -, they could not add them.

“The court ruled that they would restrict it to those who have been prohibited and it is the same principle that has found its way in today’s Supreme Court’s case,” he said.

He added that: “We accepted the decision and we did not scandalize the court and the party members of the NDC were happy to contest for positions and that is how come officials of the GHA could contest for NDC party positions.

“Today, the NDC is arguing that although the Deputy Speaker has not been specially prohibited by parity of reasoning once the Speaker has been prohibited when presiding, the deputies should also not have the right to vote when presiding,” he said.

The Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Jones Dotse, yesterday ruled that a Deputy Speaker can be counted during the formation of a quorum for parliamentary decision-making and participate in voting while presiding on parliamentary business.

But speaking on JoyNews’ AM show, Mr. Dafeamekpor opined that such a ruling from the Supreme Court amounts to intrusion in the powers of Parliament.

“This is a judicial coup d’etat against the Legislature. And I think it also amounts to an intrusion in the powers of parliament so to speak,” he said.

According to him, such ruling from the Supreme Court is a very sad interpretation, hence waiting for the reasons for such a ruling.

“It’s a very sad interpretation from the Supreme Court yesterday. But I have been very shy from commenting vehemently on the matter. Because I am waiting for the reasons. I am told that the reasons will be given tomorrow,” he disclosed.

“And so, if we receive the full rulings then we can deal with the grounds upon which the Supreme Court came to the interpretation that they came to,” he stated.

He argued that the Supreme Court has given a judicial blessing to chaos in Parliament.

“One other thing the Supreme Court got wrong is that they got the reasoning logically wrong. Because when we speak of the Speakership it’s not about one person, its an office. And there are occupants; there’s a prefect and two deputy speakers,” he added.

“The jurisprudent under parliamentary democracy is one that the Speakership has no voting right. So, you cannot be ascribing voting right to occupants of the Speakership when the constitution says no,” he said.