Court Decides On IGP

A Fast Track High Court in Accra will today decide on whether or not to hear an application seeking to set aside the issue of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) allegedly disobeying the court’s order to re-instate 24 police officers who were arbitrarily dismissed from the service.

The court presided over by Justice Edward Amoako Asante adjourned proceedings because J.K. Yeboah, counsel for the 24 policemen, raised preliminary legal objection yesterday to the movement of the Police Administration’s application seeking to set aside the court’s decision of October 2010, which ordered them to re-instate the policemen.

As a result, another Fast Track High Court presided over by Justice Denise Agyei of the Court of Appeal could not hear the contempt application brought against the IGP by the affected policemen, for refusing to re-instate them.

The court adjourned the proceedings until October 17 to await the outcome of the application filed by the Police Administration to set aside the order to re-instate the 24 policemen.

When the case was called, Mr. Kukruku and DCOP Ken Yeboah, representing the IGP, told the court that they were seeking to set aside the court’s order of certiorari for the Police Administration to re-instate the 24 policemen because the whole action was misplaced.

They argued that in a certiorari application such as this one, the petitioners (24 policemen) should have joined the Attorney-General as an advisor of the government to the whole action as provided under Article 88 (5) of the 1992 Constitution.

However, just as the argument was gathering momentum, Mr. Yeboah cut in with an objection, saying that since the IGP had been cited for contempt and the respondent/applicant (IGP) had not taken any steps to purge himself of the contempt, he (IGP) could not be heard on the application.

On April 13, 2007, the Police Administration announced the dismissal of 24 policemen after a police enquiry established that they misconducted themselves by allowing the media to cover the bad accommodation problems facing them at the Police Barracks Depot in Accra.

The affected policemen, who were not given a fair hearing at the police enquiry sitting, challenged the decision to dismiss them and won the case but the Police Administration blatantly refused to re-instate them as directed by the court, leading to the filing of contempt proceedings against the IGP.

It all started when 30 policemen were brought before the Police Service Enquiry Board on charges of misconduct in 2007 but each of them denied the allegation.

According to the policemen, even though they were questioned, they were not allowed to tell their side of the story or cross-examine the witnesses who testified at the enquiry and later, all they heard was that only six had been cleared and the rest (24) given dismissal letters to take effect from May 1, 2007.

Based on this, their counsel, J.K. Yeboah, first filed an order of mandamus at the High Court, presided over by Justice N.M.C Abodakpi on June 24, 2009, to compel the IGP to “furnish the applicants with the proceeding that culminated in their discharge within 30 days after the service of this order”.

It took several months for the Police Administration to comply with the court’s order and when they finally did, the lawyer realized his clients had been unfairly dismissed per the proceedings.

He therefore filed a notice for judicial review in the nature of Certiorari under order 55 Rule1 of C.I. 47/2004, asking the court to compel the Police Administration to re-instate the dismissed policemen.

The respondent (IGP) was served with the processes but his counsel failed to attend court when the application was moved before Justice Asante who quashed the decision by the Police Administration to dismiss the applicants and also awarded cost of GH¢ 1,000 for each applicant against the respondent.

The police was also ordered to pay all entitlements due the applicants including salaries and allowances from the date of their unlawful dismissal.

However, since October 25, 2010 when the court gave the order, the Police Administration has refused to comply with the court’s order.