By Francis Kobena Tandoh
Renowned academic, Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, also known as Kwaku Azar, has observed that a parliamentary seat becomes vacant only after a full judicial process has run its course, according to a write-up on Thursday.
According to him, Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana is quite clear on the matter and described the action taken by the Parliament of Ghana and the Electoral Commission (EC) in declaring the seat vacant and subsequently the announcement of a rerun as “avoidable chaos.”
The EC, in a statement late Wednesday, announced it will hold a parliamentary rerun in the Kpandai Constituency on December 30, 2025, for the three candidates who contested the 2024 parliamentary election in the area.
The electoral management body’s announcement follows a notification of a vacant seat by the Clerk to Parliament as a result of a Tamale High Court ruling.
Find the full write-up of Prof. Kwaku Azar below;
Kwaku Azar writes:
The EC has scheduled a by-election in Kpandai for 30th December 2025. Imagine that the poll is held and a new candidate emerges victorious.
Now imagine that, just four days later, on 3rd January 2026, the Court of Appeal reverses the High Court and affirms that the incumbent was validly elected.
What would we be left with?
Two competing mandates. One MP elected in 2024 whose seat was never truly vacant. Another MP elected in 2025 in a by-election that should never have happened. A Parliament unsure whom to seat. A Constitution bent out of shape for no good reason.
This is avoidable chaos—and precisely what Article 99 is designed to prevent. A parliamentary seat becomes vacant only after the full judicial process has run its course. The Clerk and the EC must respect this safeguard, not override it.
Concerns that judicial processes may be taking too long cannot be the basis for overriding the Constitution. Rather, they are a reminder that the cure for delay is procedural reform—not institutional shortcuts that manufacture constitutional crises.
When the High Court, the Clerk of Parliament, or the EC acts as though a non-final judgment is final, they do not speed up justice; they simply break the constitutional sequence that protects the integrity of parliamentary representation.
The law is clear: no vacancy exists until Article 99 has fully run its course.
To pretend otherwise is to invite confusion, erode legitimacy, and burden the nation with litigation that should never arise.
Some say this move follows the Gyakye Quayson precedent. This is false. The Gyakye Quayson by-election was scheduled pursuant to a Supreme Court order from which no further appeal lies, which, in my view, was itself wrongly issued. It was not based on the Cape Coast High Court ruling.
Indeed, the High Court decision was on appeal when the Supreme Court intervened, which was one of the reasons that approach was constitutionally unsound.
What is the rush to have a by-election rather than allow the Court of Appeal to speak?
There is no constitutional justification for it. A parliamentary seat becomes vacant only after the full Article 99 appeal process has concluded. Until then, the High Court’s judgment is provisional, not final, and cannot trigger a by-election.
Pushing ahead before the appellate court has spoken does not uphold democracy; it pre-empts it. It substitutes impatience for the Constitution’s deliberate sequence.
And for what gain? The difference of a few weeks? The cost of waiting is minimal. The cost of acting prematurely is national confusion, competing mandates, and avoidable constitutional disorder.
When the law has already designed a safe, orderly pathway, rushing to cut corners is not efficiency—it is recklessness. The Court of Appeal must be allowed to speak before the people are asked to vote again.
Our institutions must resist the temptation to “do corner fast” at the expense of the Constitution.
We deserve order, not expediency.
PS: Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.
Da Yie!
Share Us
