Author: Phoebe Martekie Doku

IMANI Africa’s Vice President, Kofi Bentil, has fiercely opposed the government’s decision to appoint a new Inspector General of Police (IGP) while the Supreme Court has yet to determine the legality of the former IGP’s removal.

Bentil contends that President John Mahama’s move to sack Dr. George Akuffo Dampare and replace him with COP Christian Tetteh Yohuno is a direct affront to the authority of the Supreme Court.

During an interview on JoyFM on Friday, March 14, he argued that it is unlawful to take actions that could interfere with or render a pending court decision ineffective.

“When a case is before a court, it is contemptuous of the court for anybody to take an action that overreaches the court. …What it means is simply that you don’t do anything to make nonsense of a court ruling where it is imminent.

“Now, the action, therefore, of the executive is contemptuous of the highest court of this land, because for about a year now, a case has been filed before they came into office,” he said,” he said.

He further emphasized that the case concerning Dampare’s removal has been before the Supreme Court for almost a year, yet the executive still proceeded with the appointment, which he believes disregards judicial oversight.

Bentil also noted that although the court has heard arguments and set a date for its decision, the President’s appointment of a new IGP is a clear dismissal of legal protocols.

“That confusion which will erupt is exactly the reason why no law abiding person, when a case is before a court and the court is about to make a ruling, would go and try to overreach the court.

“Indeed, there is a school of thought that believes that under the circumstance, there is already an injunction in place, which is why we filed to confirm that injunction, so that, if there is any doubt, nobody will act based on that.

“Now being that, as it may, that they have done what they’ve done if the court ruled that indeed, the president should not remove any IGP or security head or whatever without just cause, what happens? We end up in a very, very terrible stalemate” he said.

Kofi Bentil emphasized that the issue at hand is not about individuals like former IGP Dr. George Akuffo Dampare or newly appointed IGP Christian Tetteh Yohonu. Rather, he stressed, it is about preserving the credibility and stability of Ghana’s security institutions.

“We did not speak for IGP Dampare, myself and Prof Anning here, we have been at this thing for years before IGP Dampare. We don’t speak for him, and we have no problem with anybody doing their job. We have no problem with IGP Yohonu. I knew IGP Yohonu many years before I even knew IGP Dampare, so it is not about the personalities, it is about the security services.

“Now this will create confusion if that ruling comes out to hold our viewpoint that upon the reading of all the laws that are applicable, a president can appoint but may not remove a ranked officer without just cause.”

He warned that if the Supreme Court rules in their favor—affirming that while the President has the power to appoint security leaders, they cannot be arbitrarily dismissed without valid justification—the government’s decision could create unnecessary uncertainty.

Bentil expressed disappointment over the timing of the IGP’s removal, noting that if the court ultimately supports their argument, corrective measures should be taken to restore due process.

IMANI Ghana, along with security analyst Prof. Kwesi Anning, has petitioned the Supreme Court to block the President from dismissing the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and other security chiefs until the court delivers its final judgment in May 2025.

The petitioners contend that removing these officials before the ruling is issued would be unfair and could disrupt the nation’s security framework.

This legal action follows reports suggesting that the President plans to replace key security heads, including the IGP.

As part of their case, the petitioners have requested the court to impose an injunction preventing the President and the governing bodies of the Ghana Police Service, Ghana Immigration Service, National Fire Service, and Ghana Prisons Service from terminating, suspending, or interfering with the leadership of these agencies.

They argue that their case raises significant constitutional concerns and that granting the injunction would not harm the government, as the court’s decision is imminent.

Additionally, they maintain that if their legal challenge fails, the Executive would still have the power to make leadership changes within the security services.

The lawsuit concludes by urging the court to grant the injunction, emphasizing that it is a fair and necessary measure to prevent premature dismissals before the case is fully adjudicated.