Ghana’s Supreme Court has overturned the contempt of court conviction of Ernest Yaw Kumi, New Patriotic Party Member of Parliament for Akwatia, in a landmark 4-1 majority ruling delivered on Wednesday morning following a successful judicial review application challenging the High Court’s jurisdiction.

The apex court’s decision nullifies both the original conviction handed down by the High Court, Koforidua, Eastern Region and the subsequent execution of a bench warrant issued by Justice Emmanuel Senyo Amadehe. As a direct consequence of the Supreme Court’s intervention, Justice Amadehe has been prohibited from proceeding with sentencing on the contempt charge.

Background: Parliamentary swearing-in controversy

Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition at page 313 defines contempt as: "1. The act or state of despising; condition of being despised and (2) conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a Court or Parliament."

In the unreported Supreme Court case of Republic v Nkansah, Hayfron-Benjamin JSC (as he then was) defined contempt of court as any conduct “that tends to bring the authority and administration of the court into disrespect or disregard, and or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants, or their witnesses is a contempt." 

Also, in Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex-Parte Laryea Mensah, the  court stated: “By definition, a person commits contempt and may be committed to prison for wilfully disobeying an order of the court requiring him to do any act other than the payment of money or abstain from doing some act; and the order sought to be enforced should be unambiguous and must be clearly understood by the parties concerned."

The contempt proceedings originated from Mr Kumi’s defiance of an interim injunction issued by the Koforidua High Court that barred him from being sworn in as a Member of Parliament pending the resolution of an election petition. Despite the court’s explicit directive restraining him from presenting himself for the oath of office, Mr Kumi proceeded to take his parliamentary oath, prompting the contempt action.

On 19 February 2025, Justice Amadehe convicted Mr Kumi of contempt, citing overwhelming evidence of wilful defiance of the court’s authority. The judge dismissed attempts by his lawyers to justify Mr Kumi’s absence from the contempt hearing through an official letter, maintaining that the MP had deliberately disregarded the court’s injunction.

The High Court subsequently issued a bench warrant for Mr Kumi’s arrest after he failed to appear before the court for sentencing, creating a constitutional standoff between parliamentary privilege and judicial authority.

Judicial composition and voting

The Supreme Court panel was led by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, who served as President of the bench but found himself in the minority position. Justice Pwamang cast the sole dissenting vote against the majority decision.

The majority comprised four justices: Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Ernest Gaewu, Henry Kwofi, and Adjei Frimpong, who collectively determined that the High Court’s contempt proceedings should be set aside.

Jurisdictional challenge and legal arguments

The case arose from Mr Kumi’s judicial review application challenging the High Court’s jurisdiction over an election petition that led to an injunction against the MP. Legal counsel Gary Nimako-Marfo, who serves as the NPP’s Director of Legal Affairs, argued that the High Court lacked proper jurisdiction to entertain the underlying election petition.

The central legal argument focused on statutory time limits governing election petitions. Mr Nimako-Marfo contended that Ghana’s electoral laws require election petitions to be filed within 21 days of the publication of certified results in the official gazette.

Section 18(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 states:

“An election petition shall be presented within twenty-one days after the date of the publication in the Gazette of the result of the election to which it relates, but a petition questioning an election on an allegation of corrupt practice and specifically alleging a payment of money or any other award to have been made by the person whose election is questioned or to have been made on behalf of and to that person's knowledge, may be presented within twenty-one days after the date of the alleged payment.”

In the present instance, whilst the petition was filed on 31 December 2024, the results were not gazetted until 6 June 2025—a delay that exceeded the statutory timeframe by several months. The defence argued that this procedural failure invalidated the court’s jurisdiction from the outset.

Natural justice concerns

Mr Nimako-Marfo also raised fundamental procedural objections to the contempt proceedings themselves. He argued that the High Court had convicted Mr Kumi of contempt without affording him a proper hearing, constituting a breach of natural justice principles that are fundamental to due process.

This procedural challenge highlighted broader questions about the requirements for contempt proceedings and the necessity of providing defendants with adequate opportunity to respond to allegations before conviction.

Opposition arguments

Counsel for the National Democratic Congress parliamentary candidate, Henry Boakye Yiadom, contested these claims before the Supreme Court. The opposition legal team maintained that the High Court had acted within its proper legal mandate and that both the original injunction and subsequent contempt ruling were procedurally and substantively valid.

This created a fundamental dispute over jurisdictional interpretation and procedural requirements that required resolution at the highest judicial level.

Legal implications 

The Supreme Court’s intervention represents a significant exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts in matters of contempt and electoral law. The decision effectively removes all legal consequences flowing from the original High Court conviction, including any enforcement mechanisms that had been activated.

Although the full reasons for today’s decision are not yet public, lawyers say the ruling will establish important precedent regarding the interaction between statutory time limits in electoral law and subsequent judicial proceedings. The decision, according to some legal minds, appears to suggest that procedural defects in the foundational jurisdiction of a court can invalidate all subsequent orders and rulings flowing from that jurisdiction.

The prohibition placed upon Justice Amadehe from proceeding with sentencing demonstrates the Supreme Court’s authority to halt judicial proceedings when it determines that proper legal standards have not been met, particularly in cases involving fundamental jurisdictional questions.

This story will be updated as further details of the Supreme Court’s reasoning become available.

Source:Hard Law Journal | 11 June 2025