Lawyer Sylvester Isang, one of the lawyers representing the embattled Member of Parliament for Kpandai constituency, Matthew Nyindam, has lamented over the decision to hold a re-run of the Kpandai parliamentary elections on December 30, despite a pending application for stay of execution.
He argues that this move would set a very bad precedent that could introduce uncertainty into Ghana’s jurisprudence.
”In the Matter of the Order for Re-Run of the Kpandai Parliamentary Elections and the Directive for elections to be held on 30th December, when there is a Pending Application for stay of execution. We are apparently setting a bad precedent, and if care is not taken, this precedent may haunt us for years to come.
“The law as I understand it, is well settled on this matter. The judgment delivered by the High Court Tamale Commercial Division on the 24th of November, 2025, is an executable judgment,” he emphasised.
The Counsel said this in a statement on Facebook following the announcement made by the Electoral Commission (EC) to conduct the rerun on Tuesday, December 30.
According to Lawyer Isang, the judgment delivered by the Tamale High Court Commercial Division on November 24, 2025, is an executable judgment, but it is subject to an automatic stay of execution for seven days.
After this period, he asserted if the losing party files an appeal and a motion for stay of execution, the rules of court provide that nothing should be enforced about the judgment until the motion is determined. That means that until and unless seven days elapse after the judgment the successful party cannot even think about enforcing the judgment delivered in his or her favour” he stated.
It would be recalled that Lawyers for the embattled New Patriotic Party (NPP) lawmaker filed an application for stay of execution of the High Court judgment, which was heard in court yesterday, Wednesday, December 10, but the case was adjourned to December 18 for determination.
“Assuming the motion for stay of execution is refused on the 18th of December 2025, there is further provision of the law ( See C.I 19 Rule 27) that there is another automatic stay of execution for another seven days of the judgment.
“After the lapse of this second seven-day automatic stay period, if the losing party repeats his application for stay of execution at the Court of Appeal, the rules provide that no execution of the judgment should be done until that repeat application is heard by the Court of Appeal,” he posited.
Lawyer Sylvester Isang indicated that this decision could have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only the Kpandai parliamentary elections but also future cases, and potentially confusing practitioners and law students.
”I am therefore at a loss, and until my attention is drawn to a contrary law, I am of the respectful opinion that we appear to be throwing away what the law is and developing a precedent that could introduce uncertainty into our jurisprudence.
”And I don’t know what becomes of the position of the law now for many practitioners and law students,” he added.
