The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed an application for injunction which sought to restrain President John Mahama from sacking Dr. George Akuffo Dampare as Ghana’s Inspector General of Police (IGP), describing it as moot.
According to the court, the application had been overtaken by events since the President had already announced a new IGP and heads of other uniformed security services.
A five-member panel of the court also disagreed with the applicants that the President’s decision to effect the changes while the application was pending was calculated to overreach the Supreme Court.
The panel, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and assisted by Justices Issifu Omoro Amadu Tanko, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, and Samuel Asiedu held that the pendency of the action did not stop the President from performing his public and administrative function.
Injunction
Imani Centre for Policy and Education and Prof. Kwesi Aning, had filed an application at the apex court seeking to restrain President Mahama from terminating the appointment of the Inspector General of Police, Dr. George Akuffo Dampare and other heads of the uniformed security services.
The application sought the court to restrain the President or his agents and assigns from sacking any of the heads of the uniformed security services pending the determination of a suit challenging the age-old phenomenon of these appointees losing their jobs as a result of a change in government.
A day after it was filed, the President terminated the appointment of Dr. Dampare as the IGP, appointing in his place COP Christian Tetteh Yohuno as the new IGP, as well as replacing the heads of the other uniformed security services.
Motion
Appearing before the court on Tuesday, Kofi Bentil, counsel for the applicants, argued that the President’s decision to fire the old heads and replace them with new ones was done to overreach the Supreme Court.
He sought to convince the Supreme Court to reverse the President’s decision, arguing that the court should not allow these things to go on.
He pointed out that there was a calculation in the decision of the President, and the court will note that when the application was filed, it was stated that there was credible evidence that the President was going to overreach the court.
Adwoa Obeng, a Principal State Attorney, opposed the application and argued that some events have overtaken the relief sought by the applicants.
She added that since an injunction cannot seek to restrain an event which has already taken place, the court should dismiss the application.
Some members of the panel pointed out that the Supreme Court can make directives to guide future handling of these appointees if the court ruled in favour of the applicant in a substantive writ challenging the President’s power to fire the IGP and others.
“If the substantive writ succeeds, the panel hearing the case can make directives for posterity. This is an exceptional case which involves the security of the state,” Justice Tanko pointed out.
He also commended Mr. Bentil for pursuing the case which is of public interest, pointing out that this an issue that has persisted for years.
“It shouldn’t be made to look as if you’re trying to weaken the threshold of a particular President,” Justice Tanko added.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak