General News of 2013-03-08

Lawyers threaten contempt charges against NACOB

Lawyers for two officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) have threatened to press contempt charges against Mr Akrasi Sarpong, Executive Secretary of NACOB and his Governing Board.

According to the lawyers, Mr Akrasi Sarpong was defying the court’s order to halt disciplinary proceedings into an alleged conduct of the two officials, Nana Sanzah Erzah and Fatimatu Abadulai after they have been discharged by a court on the same accusations.

The two officials were in August 2011 accused of aiding drug traffickers at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) in collaboration with other officials of NACOB and some police personnel.

They were subsequently interdicted and put before court but on November 6, 2011 the Accra Circuit Court discharged them for want of prosecution.

They were recalled by NACOB on February 11, 2013 after almost 16months of being on interdiction.

Three days after they had resumed duty, the Executive Secretary of NACOB, Mr Yaw Akrasi Sarpong, per a February 14, 2013 letter, invited them to appear before a disciplinary panel to be investigated for misconduct, failure to perform in a proper manner duties reposed in them, abuse of office, breach of the confidence that NACOB reposed in them and conducting themselves in such a manner that tended to bring NACOB into disrepute.

Before the disciplinary panel, chaired by Mr Francis Torkonoo, could start its work on February 18, 2013, the two, Nana Sanzah Ezrah and Ms Fatimatu Abdulai, secured an interim injunction from the Human Rights Court to restrain the Executive Secretary and the governing board and the disciplinary panel from holding any disciplinary proceedings against them.

The Attorney-General (AG) is yet to provide a response to the court order for the main motion to be moved.

At the siting of the Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court Thursday, the court adjourned hearing to March 14, 2013.

Mr Emmanuel Bright Atokoh, a lawyer for the two NACOB officials expressed concern that the management of NACOB had defied the court order and continued to call the officials before the disciplinary committee for which reason he threatened to file contemptuous charges against NACOB and its governing board.

It would be recalled that in granting the injunction application, the court, stated, “It is hereby ordered that the Executive Secretary and the Governing Board of the Narcotics Control Board and, indeed, the disciplinary panel are restrained from holding any disciplinary proceedings into the alleged conduct of the applicants in the interim until the application is heard on its merit when notice would have been given to them.”