News Extra

Supreme court revokes bench warrant for Kevin Taylor in landmark 4-1 decision

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

 

By: Samuel Asamoah

Ghana’s Supreme Court has revoked a bench warrant issued in 2020 against US-based Ghanaian media personality Kevin Ekow Baidoo Taylor, following a 4–1 majority decision by a five-member panel. The ruling is considered a major development in the ongoing legal issues involving the political commentator, who was accused of scandalising the judiciary.

The court found that the warrant, issued without affording Taylor the opportunity to be heard, contravenes his constitutional right to a fair trial. The decision paves the way for Taylor to remain in the country without facing immediate arrest, although it does not erase the substance of the contempt concerns previously raised.

Kelvin Tailor and his Lawyer coming out of the SC

Four of the five justices on the panel voted to quash the warrant, with one dissenting. The majority reportedly held that while the judiciary must maintain its authority, the legal process must respect fundamental rights, including due process and freedom of expression.

Background

In 2020, a High Court in Accra issued a bench warrant for Taylor’s arrest after he failed to appear in court in response to contempt charges. The charges were linked to his public criticisms of a sitting Court of Appeal judge over an alleged bias in a corruption case.

Taylor, who is the host of With All Due Respect on Loud Silence Media, remained outside Ghana until his return in July 2025. Following his return, his legal team filed an application at the Supreme Court seeking to have the warrant quashed, arguing it was issued in violation of his rights.

Court’s Position

Though the official judgment is yet to be published in full, the Supreme Court’s decision appears grounded in procedural fairness. Legal observers have noted that the bench likely considered the fact that Taylor was not given a prior hearing, which may have led the court to conclude that the warrant was improperly issued.

The lone dissenting judge was said to have maintained that the statements made by Taylor against the judiciary could not be taken lightly and warranted a strong response to protect the dignity of the courts.

Legal Reactions

Legal analysts have offered mixed reactions. Some view the ruling as a critical reminder that contempt proceedings must be conducted within the bounds of constitutional protections. Others warn that the decision should not be misinterpreted as a blanket endorsement of irresponsible speech, especially against the judiciary.

While Taylor celebrated the outcome online as a legal vindication, legal experts caution that contempt proceedings could still be initiated through the proper legal channels if deemed necessary.

Next Steps

The full written judgment is expected to provide detailed reasoning behind the court’s decision and may serve as guidance in future cases involving contempt and freedom of expression

 

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button