Renowned legal scholar Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has once again entered Ghana’s legal discourse with a sharp comme
Renowned legal scholar Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has once again entered Ghana’s legal discourse with a sharp commentary on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Kevin Taylor contempt case.
In a piece widely circulated on social media and legal forums, Azar explores the constitutional and jurisprudential implications of the judgment, while cautioning against the growing politicisation of legal outcomes in the country.
The context of Kwaku Azar’s reflections is the controversial Supreme Court decision involving US-based Ghanaian journalist and commentator, Kevin Taylor, who was facing contempt proceedings.
The court’s decision to quash a previous High Court ruling against Taylor on procedural grounds — specifically, the failure to give him a fair hearing — has triggered reactions across the political spectrum.
Kwaku Azar, known for his deep commitment to judicial accountability and legal reforms, frames the ruling as a straightforward case of applying a fundamental principle of natural justice: audi alteram partem — the right to be heard.
“Ghanaian precedent, stretching back decades, makes one thing clear: no one should suffer an adverse decision without notice and an opportunity to be heard,” Azar wrote.
He adds that such a ruling, if purely procedural, is both expected and unremarkable — legally correct but not groundbreaking.
Indeed, Ghana’s courts have consistently upheld the principle that a person cannot be condemned without a hearing.
Legal observers argue that the Supreme Court’s decision, in this case, reinforces this long-established doctrine.
Yet, Kwaku Azar laments that the deeper significance of such decisions is often lost in the noise of political partisanship.
According to him, many in the public sphere do not evaluate rulings based on legal merit, but on the perceived political alignment of the parties involved.
“For partisans, none of this will matter. Legal reasoning is background noise. The only thing that matters is who won and what jersey they wear,” he stated.
This sentiment echoes broader concerns in Ghana’s legal and political landscape, where the impartiality of judicial decisions is frequently questioned, depending on whose political interest is served.
“If their side wins, it’s ‘judicial wisdom.’ If their side loses, it’s ‘judicial witchcraft.’ Principles be damned; it’s all about the scoreboard,” Azar writes in a piercing critique of Ghana’s partisan culture.
He further revisits his longstanding discomfort with how contempt of court is applied in Ghana, referencing a 2013 article titled “Justice of Contempt”.
In that piece, Kwaku Azar argued against the opaque and arbitrary enforcement of contempt rules, particularly when used to silence dissent or criticism of the judiciary.
His concerns remain just as relevant in 2025, as legal critics continue to raise questions about how contempt powers are exercised.
The Supreme Court ruling in Kevin Taylor’s case has rekindled debate about the boundaries of free speech, judicial authority, and the politicisation of justice in Ghana.
While the court may have merely followed the textbook by affirming Taylor’s right to be heard, the political reaction to the judgment highlights a more troubling trend — where law is seen through the tinted lenses of party loyalty.
COMMENTS