A political storm brews in Parliament as Speaker Bagbin rules on Nyindam’s contested seat — but this is where things get interesting.
The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has stepped into the tense debate surrounding Kpandai MP Matthew Nyindam’s status, declaring that the legislator remains a sitting Member of Parliament — at least for now. His decision, made public on Thursday, November 27, 2025, could reignite partisan tempers already running high within the House.
Bagbin described attempts by some members of the Majority Caucus to block Nyindam from taking part in parliamentary work as “premature.” According to him, a recent High Court ruling that annulled Nyindam’s election victory and ordered a fresh poll within 30 days does not take immediate effect. Under the law, Nyindam retains his seat until the mandatory seven-day stay of execution that follows such a judgment officially lapses.
In practical terms, this means Nyindam can continue representing Kpandai and take part in debates until December 1, 2025 — the day the stay expires. The Speaker clarified, “Honorable members, it is therefore premature to say that Honorable Matthew Nyindam has been disqualified from participating in the House’s proceedings. This period remains within the seven-day stay of execution of the court’s order.” He further emphasized that the High Court’s pronouncement was an executive order, not a declaratory one, meaning Nyindam’s engagement in Parliament remains valid for the time being.
But not everyone agrees. The controversy flared up the previous day — Wednesday, November 26 — when Nyindam tried to contribute to a debate on the House floor. His move was instantly challenged by the Majority Chief Whip, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, who cited the Tamale High Court’s decision as grounds for disqualification. Dafeamekpor argued passionately that Nyindam’s membership had already been nullified “by operation of law.” A video shared by The 1957 News captured him stating, “Mr. Speaker, the High Court on November 24 annulled the December 7, 2024, election that brought Honorable Nyindam to this House. Therefore, that election must be rerun, and by law, he ceases to be a member with a voice in Parliament.”
The Minority has also weighed in, reacting with outrage and branding the court’s action as nothing short of a “kangaroo ruling.” Their pushback adds a new layer of political drama, potentially deepening the division between Ghana’s two main political blocs.
Here’s the part most people miss: while Bagbin’s ruling keeps Nyindam’s seat temporarily intact, it may set a broader precedent for how Parliament interprets court decisions about election disputes in the future. Should procedural technicalities like a stay of execution outweigh the political optics of fairness? Or is the Speaker simply upholding due process — even if it means defying popular sentiment?
So what do you think — is Speaker Bagbin protecting parliamentary procedure or giving Nyindam an unfair reprieve? Should MPs under legal dispute be allowed to keep their seats during appeals? Let’s hear your perspective in the comments below.
