Former Executive Vice President of Unilever Ghana and Nigeria, Yaw Nsarkoh, has questioned the judiciary’s use of contempt powers, arguing that the authority should not be used to discourage legitimate scrutiny of judicial decisions.
Speaking at a JoyNews and An Amalgam of Professionals event in Accra on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, Mr Nsarkoh said judicial authority, like any other form of power, must be subject to critical examination and accountability.
“If judges sit in court, and this happened, I’m not making it up, it’s not AI, if judges sit in court and write into judgment that we have freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech, why on God’s earth should we be unsure whether such wanton abuse of power can be described as professionally irresponsible?” he asked.
“Power corrupts; judicial power is power too,” he added.
His remarks questioned whether contempt proceedings could discourage public criticism of judicial conduct and decisions, raising broader concerns about accountability within the justice system.
Mr Nsarkoh also called for the establishment of an independent prosecutor at cabinet rank or an equivalent level, arguing that such an office could strengthen accountability for wrongdoing involving senior political figures.
He questioned the independence of Ghana’s Attorney-General, who is appointed by the President and serves as a member of Cabinet.
“Our Attorney General is a member of cabinet, appointed by the president, living in that role at the pleasure of the president,” he said.
He argued that Ghana needed a “really muscular” independent prosecutor capable of pursuing cases involving even the most powerful people in government.
The proposal forms part of his broader argument for institutional arrangements that can strengthen accountability and public confidence in the exercise of state power.
Mr Nsarkoh also criticised what he described as performative aggression within the legal profession and Parliament, questioning why disagreements among public officials often involve shouting and displays of hostility.
“Why is it impossible to turn down the aggression routinely shown towards each other? With so many lawyers ending up in Parliament, that orientation is carried into those chambers. Why must that be the case? Is it impossible to make laws without all this shouting and feigned acrimony we sometimes see?” he asked.
He questioned whether such conduct was beneficial to the mental wellbeing of public officials or conducive to serious deliberation.
Mr Nsarkoh argued that parliamentary and judicial institutions could conduct their work with greater restraint and respect without compromising robust debate.
“There are judicial and parliamentary cultures in the world that have moved past this performative boisterousness that we are normalizing in some aspects of our political culture. What we need is the will to learn from those and even our own history of governance, especially in traditional communities,” he said.