The ongoing contempt proceedings against U.S.-based Ghanaian broadcaster Kevin Taylor have sparked a heated debate within Ghana’s political landscape, with minority Members of Parliament raising serious concerns about potential judicial bias and inconsistencies in the handling of the case. Central to their argument is the perceived disregard for the fundamental principle of “audi alteram partem,” or the right to be heard, a cornerstone of fair judicial process. They contend that the Acting Chief Justice’s decision to proceed with a hearing date despite the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the main suit raises questions about the impartiality and integrity of the judicial process. This perceived procedural irregularity has ignited a firestorm of criticism, with some questioning whether the judiciary is applying the law consistently and impartially.
The core of the controversy revolves around Kevin Taylor’s alleged contemptuous remarks, which resulted in a bench warrant being issued for his arrest. However, despite his failure to appear before the High Court, Taylor was able to file and have an application heard by the Supreme Court without being detained. This apparent contradiction has fueled accusations of preferential treatment and selective enforcement of the law. The Minority MPs argue that this apparent leniency undermines the principle of equality before the law and creates the impression that certain individuals are above the reach of the justice system. This perceived double standard, they
