Akwatia MP Explains Why Kevin Taylor Was Not Arrested in Ghana

The Member of Parliament for Akwatia, Bernard Bediako Baidoo, has explained why Ghanaian social media commentator Kevin Taylor was not arrested when he returned to the country despite the existence of a High Court bench warrant.

According to Baidoo, Taylor’s legal team had already filed a case at the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the warrant before he arrived in Ghana.

The National Democratic Congress MP and legal practitioner offered the explanation during a panel discussion on Joy FM’s Newsfile concerning the “Ghana Jollof” case.

Baidoo said Taylor’s lawyers filed the Supreme Court processes on July 2, 2025, seeking to overturn the bench warrant issued against him in 2020. Taylor reportedly returned to Ghana on July 24 or 25, while the legal challenge was still pending.

He argued that it would have been legally inappropriate for the police to enforce the warrant at a time when the country’s highest court was examining whether it had been lawfully issued.

“At the time, the matter was seized with the Supreme Court to determine whether the bench warrant was proper or not,” Baidoo explained.

The controversy originated from a bench warrant issued by Justice Eric Kyei Baffour in January 2020 after Taylor was cited for criminal contempt over comments he made on social media about a high-profile corruption trial.

The Supreme Court later quashed the warrant in a 4-1 majority ruling. The court held that it had been issued without due process and violated the principles of natural justice.

The apex court found that Taylor had not been properly summoned or given a fair opportunity to respond to the contempt allegations before the warrant was issued.

Baidoo’s explanation follows criticism from some New Patriotic Party communicators and political analysts who questioned why the government and security agencies did not arrest Taylor upon his arrival.

The Akwatia MP maintained that enforcing a warrant whose legality was under active consideration by the Supreme Court would have been highly irregular.

Source: Omanghana