According to Kofi Bentil, it constitutes contempt of court to appoint a new IGP while the injunction is still pending.

While the Supreme Court’s judgement to remove the previous Inspector General of Police (IGP) is still pending, Kofi Bentil, the vice president of IMANI Africa, has harshly opposed the government’s intention to nominate a new IGP.
He claims that President John Mahama’s decision to remove Dr. George Akuffo Dampare from his position and appoint COP Christian Tetteh Yohuno in his place is intolerable and disrespectful of the nation’s highest court.

“The legal principle is clear that when a case is before a court, it is unlawful and contemptuous to take actions that undermine or render the court’s decision ineffective,” Mr. Bentil said on Friday, March 14, during an appearance on JoyFM’s Top Story with Fostina Sarfo.

“Any activity that goes beyond the court’s authority while a matter is pending is contemptuous of the court. It simply implies that when a court decision is about to be rendered, you should not do anything to undermine it.

Because a case had been brought before they took office for around a year, he stated, “the executive’s action is now contemptuous of the highest court of this land.”
He clarified that the President has appointed a new IGP, which he feels is a clear disrespect for judicial authority, even though the Supreme Court has heard arguments from all sides and set a date for its decision.

“When a case is before a court and the court is about to make a decision, no law-abiding person would go and try to overreach the court because of the confusion that will arise.”

“There is a school of thought that holds that an injunction already exists under the circumstances, which is why we filed to confirm that injunction so that, in the event of any doubt, no one will act on that basis,” the statement reads.

Given that they have taken the actions they have, what would happen if the court decided that the president should not dismiss an IGP, security head, or other official without a valid reason? We come to a very, very bad standstill.

Mr. Bentil maintained that the goal of this lawsuit is to protect the integrity of the security system rather than to target particular people, such as recently appointed IGP Christian Tetteh Yohonu or previous IGP George Akuffo Dampare.
“Prof Anning and I have been involved in this for years before to IGP Dampare, thus we did not speak on behalf of IGP Dampare. We have no issue with anyone carrying out their duties, and we don’t speak for him. With IGP Yohonu, we had no issues. It is about the security services, not the personalities, as I knew IGP Yohonu for many years before I even knew IGP Dampare.

“Now, this will cause confusion if that ruling is rendered to support our position that a president may appoint but not remove a ranked officer without good reason after reading all applicable laws.”

“It is very unfortunate that the former IGP has been replaced,” Mr. Bentil said, adding that he expects the required modifications would be done when the Supreme Court’s decision is issued and if it is in their favour.

Context

In order to prevent the President from dismissing the Inspector-General of Police and other heads of security services until a case pertaining to the issue is resolved, Imani Ghana and security expert Prof. Kwesi Aning have jointly filed a petition before the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs contend that the removal of the concerned security chiefs prior to the Supreme Court’s decision would constitute unjust treatment.

The move comes after several rumours that the President plans to fire the Inspector General of Police and other important security personnel.
In their case, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the defendant, including His Excellency the President of the Republic, and the councils of the Ghana Police Service, Ghana Prisons Service, Ghana Immigration Service, and National Fire Service from removing, terminating, dismissing, sacking, suspending, or otherwise interfering with the roles of the Director-General of the Ghana Prisons Service, the Director-General of the National Fire Service, the Comptroller of the Ghana Immigration Service, the Director-General of the Ghana Prisons Service, and the

The injunction is requested while the matter is being decided.

The plaintiffs further contended that the matter presents significant constitutional problems, with the applicants greatly benefiting from the balance of convenience.

They argued that since the verdict is forthcoming, the government would not be harmed if the court granted the application.
Furthermore, the Executive would retain the power to dismiss the concerned security heads in the event that the plaintiffs’ case was unsuccessful.
The suit urged the court to grant the injunction to prevent any premature dismissals before the lawsuit is completely adjudicated, concluding that the application is just, proper, and required under the circumstances.