BY Issah Olegor
In a landmark decision that strengthens the protection of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court of Ghana has clarified the proper procedure for citing individuals for contempt of court, ruling in favour of US-based journalist and social commentator Kevin Ekow Taylor.
The ruling, delivered on 22nd July 2025 by Justice Tanko Amadu in the case The Republic v High Court (Commercial Division), Ex Parte Kevin Ekow Taylor [TLP/SC/2025/38], has been described by legal analysts as a significant precedent in balancing judicial authority with the right to a fair trial.
Background of the Case
Kevin Taylor, had been cited for contempt by a High Court over comments deemed scandalous to the judiciary.
The trial court went further to issue a warrant for his arrest without first summoning him to appear.
This move sparked legal debate over whether the High Court had followed due process.
Lawyers for Taylor, led by Peter Okudzeto and Eli Ahu, filed an application at the Supreme Court to challenge the decision, arguing that the trial judge had violated Taylor’s constitutional rights by denying him the opportunity to respond before an arrest warrant was issued.
Supreme Court’s Clarification
In its judgment, the Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between two categories of contempt
1. Ex facie curiae (outside the face of the court) – Here, the Court stressed that a person accused must first be formally notified and served with a summons or order to appear. Only if the accused neglects or refuses to appear can the court proceed with an arrest warrant.
2. In facie curiae (in the face of the court) – In such cases, where the contempt occurs directly before the judge, the Supreme Court cautioned that summary proceedings should only be used in the rarest circumstances and strictly when the ends of justice demand it.
Justice Tanko Amadu, who delivered the lead opinion, emphasized that these procedures are not optional but are grounded in constitutional guarantees.
He specifically referenced Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution, which ensures the right to a fair trial, and Article 296, which guards against the arbitrary use of discretionary power.
Majority Decision And Outcome
By a 4-1 majority decision, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in issuing a direct warrant of arrest against Kevin Taylor.
The justices ruled that the trial court failed to summon him or provide an opportunity to show cause, effectively denying him a fair hearing.
The arrest warrant was therefore quashed, reinforcing the principle that no individual should be punished for contempt without being given the right to defend themselves.
Legal Significance
The ruling is being hailed as a victory for due process and judicial accountability.
Legal practitioners note that while contempt powers are essential to protect the dignity of the courts, they must be exercised within constitutional limits.
