By: Prof. Kwaku Azar
Also Read
There has been a lot of faux outrage from the usual quarters following the SC’s decision in the Kevin Taylor certiorari application. Some have gone as far as suggesting that the apex court has somehow endorsed insults. That is both misguided and misleading.
Let’s be clear: No rational person, and certainly no rational court, endorses insults as a form of civil discourse. The SC has likely not ruled on whether the alleged video was scandalous, offensive, or contemptuous.
It most likely did not go into the merits of the video or the conduct. What it did, and rightly so, was to address the propriety and legality of the High Court’s order. That is precisely the essence of a certiorari application: it does not invite the Court to endorse or condemn the underlying conduct, but to assess whether the lower court acted within the bounds of law and procedure.
Ironically, many of the loudest critics of the decision have themselves resorted to insults, not only against Kevin Taylor but also against the SC and those who dared to explain its decision. And they have done so without knowing why the SC ruled the way it did. The irony, it seems, is utterly lost on them!
To understand why the Court was right to quash the order, we must start with the order itself. Here is what Justice Eric Kyei Baffour wrote:
“I issue a warrant for the apprehension of the scoundrel to be produced before the court… Until he is arrested, this warrant remains in force, and shall last the day this scoundrel that styles himself as Kevin Ekow Taylor also expires from the surface of the earth.”
The order drips with bias, impropriety, and constitutional error. Here’s what was wrong with it and why the SC had no real choice but to quash it:
1. Violation of Due Process (Audi Alteram Partem):
• Kelvin Taylor was not heard before the judge issued a warrant for his arrest.
•Contempt ex facie curiae (outside court) requires that the alleged contemnor be served, heard, and given a fair chance to respond.
• The judge prejudged guilt (“scoundrel,” “totally a fabrication,” “committed to prison”), violating Article 19(2) of the Constitution and fundamental principles of natural justice.
2. Improper Judicial Language and Bias:
• The order uses intemperate and personalized language: “scoundrel,” “impeccable integrity of the judge,” and the grotesque phrase about expiration “from the surface of the earth.”
• Such language undermines judicial impartiality, bringing the office of the judge into disrepute more than any insult could.
3. Exceeding Jurisdiction:
• The High Court has no extraterritorial jurisdiction to arrest someone outside Ghana without invoking formal extradition processes.
• The judge purported to bind executive agencies (IGP, BNI, National Security) to effect an arrest without due process, violating the separation of powers.
4. Contrary to Contempt Procedure:
• Contempt ex facie curiae must be initiated through formal process: notice, service, and hearing.
• The judge acted as complainant, prosecutor, and judge—a procedural irregularity that offends Article 296 on fair exercise of discretionary power (see e.g., Asare AJICL 2015 https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/ajicl.2015.0123)
5. Unlawful Perpetual Warrant:
• The phrase “shall last the day…[he] expires from the surface of the earth” is a constitutional aberration.
• Warrants must be lawful, time-bound, and subject to legal review, not personal vendettas dressed as judicial orders.
6. Improper Reliance on Article 126(2):
• While Article 126(2) empowers courts to punish for contempt, it does not override the right to a fair hearing.
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that contempt powers must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with natural justice (Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu & others; Ex parte AG [1995-96]).
To sum up, this decision is hardly a precedent. It is simply a straightforward application of long-standing constitutional principles: the right to a fair hearing, the duty of judicial impartiality, and the limits of contempt powers. Courts across the common law world have consistently invalidated judicial orders that flout these basics and this case is no different.
✅ What a Proper Order Would Have Looked Like
If the judge had legitimate concerns about scandalizing the court, here is how the order could have been framed properly, following the model used by the Supreme Court in the 2012 Election Petition contempt cases:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC
v.
Kevin Ekow Taylor (Alleged Contemnor)
ORDER
The Court has become aware of a video circulating on social media, purportedly made by one Kevin Ekow Taylor, which appears to contain statements that, if true, may scandalize the court and prejudice the administration of justice.
Accordingly, and pursuant to Article 126(2) of the 1992 Constitution and the inherent powers of the Court:
1. The Registrar shall issue a notice to show cause to the said Kevin Ekow Taylor to appear before this Court on [date], to show why he should not be committed for contempt.
2. The Registrar shall cause the said notice to be served through appropriate channels, including substituted service if necessary.
3. The alleged contemnor shall be afforded full opportunity to respond to the allegations in accordance with law.
4. No comment shall be made by the Court on the merits of the case until the matter is properly heard.
So ordered.
Bottom line is the SC’s decision is not an endorsement of insult. It is an endorsement of the rule of law, the right to a fair hearing, and judicial restraint.
Let’s not pretend that anger at an insulter justifies judicial overreach. Today it’s Kevin Taylor. Tomorrow it could be you. That is why even the foul-mouthed are entitled to due process.
That’s not weakness. That’s constitutional strength.
PS: Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.
Da Yie!
