IGP, Dr. George Akuffo-Dampare
A host of police officers have petitioned the Police Service Council over what they describe as arbitrary, the decision not to offer them academic promotions despite meeting the criteria for promotion.
The petitioners are among police officers who applied for the 2017/2018 Academic Year Study Leave with Pay programme for tertiary courses ranging between two to four years.
The denial of their promotion is due primarily to Regulation 37(7) of C.I. 76 which regulates academic promotions within the Ghana Police Service. It states that “An officer who attains higher academic qualification is not entitled to promotion by reason only of that academic qualification.”
They have all successfully undergone various degree and other programmes, and subsequently wrote to the Police Service Administration and attached their certificates and applied for “upgrade”, which is understood to mean “Academic Promotions” individually, but in response they were all congratulated on their achievements but the Administration remained silent on their promotions except that those qualified for administrative promotions got them but not those due academic promotions.
The petitioners, therefore, decided to come together as a group, describing themselves as “Personnel On Study Leave With Pay” and sent a petition dated September 6, 2021, appealing to the Police Administration “to have a second look at Regulation 37(7) of C.I. 76, its interpretation, implementation and effects in the Service,” believing that might be the stumbling block.
They eventually received a response in December 2021, after they had sent a reminder and the response directed that they should channel their petition through their respective chain of command as required by Service Instructions (S.I.) 45.
But the petition filed by private legal practitioner, Nii Ayikoi Otoo, avers that “On the face of the response which was terse, it did not reject the Application for ‘Upgrade’ but the attitude of the Police Administration of asking each Applicant to apply individually through their respective chain of command, when they have a common concern, conveyed to them an unwillingness on the part of the Administration to address their ‘Academic Promotions’ issue.”
According to the petition, there is sufficient evidence which can neither be denied nor concealed that what appears as Regulation 37(7) of C.I. 76 is not a new provision but a policy the Administration has been familiar with for several years as part of Policy Guidelines on Study Leave with Pay and successful applicants in the past have been reminded of that policy.
“Be that as it may, Your Petitioners say that in spite of the existence of that policy, all officers on Study Leave with Pay who graduate are by reason of having obtained higher academic qualification given ‘Academic Promotions’ with an entry into the Police College,” it added.
The petition avers that Regulation 37(7) of C.I.76, vests the Police Administration with a discretion just as when it was contained in the Policy Guidelines and requires a broad liberal and purposive interpretation so as to take into consideration the history of the provision and the goal of the Police Administration in awarding Study Leave with Pay to successful candidates for the benefit of the Service.
It recollects for instance, the suspension of “Academic Achievements” in the 2011/2012 academic year circular yet there is evidence that shows that all graduates of the 2011/2012 academic year, were promoted and sent to Police College.
“It is submitted on behalf of the Your Petitioners that the sub regulation under reference i.e 37(7) vests the Police Administration with discretion to use higher academic qualification in addition to other criteria for promotion. This is because if the draftsman intended to absolutely prohibit that mode of promotion, he would not have lacked the language to use such as the mandatory ‘shall’ instead of the verb ‘is’,” the petition avers.
It further avers that the onus is on the Police Service Appointments and Promotions Board and the Police Council to demonstrate to the petitioners that though they have met the criterion of achieving higher academic qualification, for some other reason they do not qualify to be promoted.
“In spite of the fact that they are yet to receive any official responses, the Petitioners have no reason to doubt that they are all qualified for promotion even if other criteria are taken into consideration and are therefore at a complete loss at the treatment being meted out to them by the Police Administration,” the petition states.
It concluded that “to deny Your Petitioners the opportunity now will smack of arbitrariness, capriciousness or bias either by resentment, prejudice or personal dislike towards Your Petitioners.”
It urged the Police Administration to open the doors to the petitioners “to enable them enjoy the fruits of their labour by allowing them to enter the Police College.”
By Gibril Abdul Razak