The Supreme Court has ruled, by a 4-1 majority decision, that Ernest Kumi, who was convicted for contempt by the Koforidua High Court, has the right to be heard in his appeal challenging the conviction.
This ruling follows a legal battle over whether a contemnor must purge themselves of contempt before being granted a hearing.
The five-member panel, consisting of Justices Gabriel Pwamang, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Ernest Gaewu, Henry Anthony Kwofie, and Richard Adjei-Frimpong, heard arguments from both sides before delivering their decision.
Justice Pwamang dissented, while the majority ruled that Kumi falls within an exception to the general rule that a contemnor must first purge themselves before seeking redress.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a parliamentary election petition in Akwatia, which led to a series of legal disputes before the Koforidua High Court.
Kumi, through his counsel, Gary Nimako Marfo, had initially filed a certiorari and prohibition application at the Supreme Court on January 8, 2025.
The application sought to challenge a ruling by High Court Judge Emmanuel Senyo Amedahe, delivered on January 6, 2025, concerning an interim injunction and alleged reliance on unofficial sources in court proceedings.
Kumi’s legal team argued that the High Court judge had improperly relied on information from an online news portal regarding the Electoral Commission’s gazetted parliamentary results to make a ruling.
They further contended that despite filing a stay of proceedings, the High Court continued its hearings without affording Kumi a fair opportunity to be heard.
On February 5, 2025, Kumi’s counsel also filed an application for the presiding judge to recuse himself, but this was dismissed in a ruling on February 6, 2025.
The High Court subsequently convicted Kumi for contempt on February 19, 2025, despite the pending application challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
Supreme Court Ruling
During Supreme Court proceedings, Marfo submitted that Kumi had not been given a fair hearing before his conviction and that the matter fell under exceptional circumstances where a contemnor could still be heard.
He cited legal precedent, particularly the case of Rep v High Court Judge, Kumasi, Ex Parte Hanson Kojo Kodua (2015/2016) 2 SCGLR 135, which allows a contemnor to challenge a court’s jurisdiction even while in contempt.
Opposing counsel, Bernard Bediako Badu, representing Boakye Yiadom, refrained from strongly contesting Kumi’s right to be heard, stating that the contemnor had disregarded the authority of the High Court but was willing to address the substantive application.
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, ruled in favor of Kumi, granting him the right to challenge his conviction on its merits.
The full written ruling detailing both majority and dissenting opinions will be made available by March 21, 2025.
The case has been adjourned to March 26, 2025, for a substantive hearing on the issues raised in Kumi’s application.
Admonition from the Bench
During proceedings, the Supreme Court also urged legal counsel to remain professional and avoid unnecessary tensions in court.
Marfo acknowledged the admonition, stating that while lawyers must remain objective, they also have a duty to vigorously defend their clients.
The ruling marks a significant step in the case, as Kumi will now have the opportunity to contest his contempt conviction and seek legal redress from the Supreme Court.
