NPP rejects Kpandai rerun, accuses NDC of political interference

The Northern Regional Executive Committee of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) has rejected the High Court ruling that annulled the 2024 parliamentary election in Kpandai and ordered a fresh poll.

Regional Communications Director, Mr. Danjuma, described the ruling as a “grave miscarriage of electoral justice” and an “affront to Ghana’s democracy.”

According to him, the party maintains that Matthew Nyindam remains the legitimately elected MP, a position he says is supported by the NPP leadership, the Minority Caucus in Parliament, and the Speaker.

He insisted the party will deploy every legal option available to defend the seat and urged supporters to stand firm and respond to the ruling with “law, truth, and democratic vigilance.”

NDC accused of influencing the ruling

Mr. Danjuma further alleged political interference, claiming the court’s decision was influenced by senior NDC figures. He cited what he called premature celebrations by NDC supporters in Kpandai and Tamale hours before the ruling was delivered, suggesting foreknowledge of the outcome.

NPP challenges basis for rerun

The NPP reiterated its version of events during the December 7, 2024 election, stating that although voting proceeded peacefully, the collation process was disrupted by what the party described as “NDC thugs” who destroyed election materials.

The Returning Officer subsequently moved the collation to Tamale, where Nyindam was declared winner with 27,647 votes (53.31%) against Daniel Nsala Wakpal’s 24,213 votes (46.69%).

Mr. Danjuma argued that the court’s order for a rerun across all 152 polling stations is unjustified since the NDC’s petition contested results from only 41 stations.

“Dangerous precedent”

He warned that annulling thousands of valid votes without clear grounds undermines electoral law and sets a precedent that could threaten the integrity of future elections.

“This ruling violates all known principles of electoral jurisprudence,” he said, adding that it amounts to “judicial overreach of the most dangerous kind.”