A Plea To Nananom, Kelvin Taylor And Other Legal Highlights

Published July 28 2025

It has, by all accounts, been an eventful legal year:

The suspension of a sitting Chief Justice and the attendant legal challenges arising therefrom, both before the domestic courts and the sub-regional court, the ECOWAS Court.

Equally noteworthy was the Mid-Year Bar Conference which witnessed the passage of a resolution regarded by some as controversial. That resolution led to a cascade of divergent commentary concerning the constitutional processes for the removal of a Chief Justice and the role of the bar regarding same.

And yet, the year also  witnessed  some commendable  initiatives. The Ghana Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Forum offered an important platform for junior members of the profession to share concerns with managers of the Bar

And, of course, one cannot ignore the Law Week Celebrations  across the nation. An initiative of the national Bar, this year’s law week  offered a forum to explore artificial intelligence and its attendant implications for legal practice. 

We wish members of the fraternity the best of the legal vacation

Now to the major news item of the week

Bench warrant against kelvin Taylor set aside

On 22^nd July the Supreme Court, by a majority of 4-1, quashed the bench warrant issued by Justice Eric Kyei Baffour for the arrest of Mr Kelvin Taylor, a Ghanaian broadcaster resident in the United States of America.

Taylor had been cited for making comments on social media in a relation to a case that was pending before the court and that the said comments had disparaged the court and brought the standing of the court into disrepute.

Accordingly Justice Kyei Baffuor- a Justice of the Court of Appeal and sitting as an additional High Court Judge- issued an arrest warrant for Taylor to to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt.

Justice Tanko speaking for the majority  among others indicated there was no due process in issuing the said warrant thus the decision to quash same by Certiorari. 

It must be emphasized that the Supreme Court had not been called upon to determine the merit or otherwise of the contempt of court allegation against Kevin Taylor. The question of whether the alleged comments of Kevin Taylor constituted contempt of court and whether or not he is deserving of punishment remains undecided. 

The Supreme Court was only essentially called upon to determine the propriety of the processes and procedure used by the learned trial judge in issuing the warrant of arrest. The Court held that to the extent that the learned trial High Court Judge did not issue the necessary notices to be served on Kevin Taylor before the issuance of the arrest warrant on an alleged contemptuous act that had happened outside of the court, same was invalid as it was done without jurisdiction, breaching the hallowed audi alteram partem rule.

The legal effect is that only the bench warrant has been set aside and now has no effect. However, it is still within the right or powers of the court or judge to proceed against Kevin Taylor on the contempt allegation afresh, albeit subject to the service of the statutorily required notices. 

Chiefs cannot renegotiate sold stool lands:

A Justice of the Court of Appeal, Alexander Osei Tutu, has criticized the widespread practice by some chiefs who attempt and even succeed in reselling plots of lands upon enstoolment when same had previously been sold or allocated by their predecessors.

He cautioned chiefs to refrain from harassing people who have bought lands from predecessors, noting that it is unlawful for a new chief to disclaim land transactions validly executed under a previous chief, and compel grantees to regularise their lands under threat of dispossession. Justice Osei-Tutu indicated that such practices by chiefs had been proscribed by section 183 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036),. 

This judicial observation by Justice Osei Tutu is one that will without doubt resonate with members of the public. Suffice it to state that, many have fallen victims to such conducts by newly enstooled chiefs. The remarks by Justice Alexander Osei Tutu accords with a principle of Ghanaian law-namely that stools are corporation soles. In law this means that a stool is a legal entity, separate from the individual who occupies the stool position, and it continues to exist even when the occupant changes.

It is hoped that the police and the Attorney-General together with the courts will work together to enforce the provisions of section 183 of the Act 1036 ensure deterrence. 

Fedral judge withdraws opinion

U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals of the District of New Jersey has withdrawn an opinion after a letter by a lawyer pointed out several errors in the decision.

Judge Neals withdrew the opinion on July 23, 2025 stating the opinion and an order had been entered in error

The letter was written by Andrew Lichtman, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, who had sought dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit filed against his client CorMedix Inc. The lawyer said the company was not seeking reconsideration of Neals’ denial of the motion, but he did want to point out the problems.

At a time when artificial intelligence and drafting softwares are increasingly aiding legal drafting, This case is as a cautionary tale in lawyers and judges alike employ AI. ABAJournal

AG Exercises Nolle Prosecui in the case of Kwabena Duffour and 7others

On July 7, the Attorney-General released a press statement stating it has entered a nolle prosequi in the matter of The Republic v Kwabena Duffour & 7 others

According to the Attorney-General the central objective of the prosecution has been to ensure accountability for public funds and more importantly to recover losses occasioned to the State through various acts of financial improprieties.

The statement went on further to add that following prolonged discussions and engagement, the accused persons in the The Republic v Kwabena Duffour & 7others have met this recovery threshold. And that accordingly, in the public interest and considering the significant recoveries made, the Attorney General has satisfied himself and decided that continuing the prosecution will not serve any additional purpose.