IMANI files fresh suit against appointment of security heads; withdraws old one
As such, the plaintiffs have withdrawn the old, and the same struck off by the Supreme Court.
IMANI Ghana has filed a fresh suit at the Supreme Court challenging the appointment and removal of security heads in Ghana.
As such, the plaintiffs have withdrawn the old, and the same struck off by the Supreme Court.
Per their old suit, the plaintiffs, IMANI and Prof. Kwesi Aning argued that the Ghana Police Service and three others are part of the public services of Ghana, so the removal of their heads must be justified under Article 191(b) of the constitution.
However, when the case was called on June 5, 2024, lawyers for IMANI told the seven-member panel that they had filed a notice to discontinue the case.
This did not attract the Chief Justice’s admiration, who described the move as ‘really unacceptable’ owing to the public traction garnered by the case.
Counsel for the plaintiff thus explained to the court that their move is geared towards satisfying new developments.
The plaintiffs per their old writ argued that over the years, new governments in Ghana have removed, dismissed, or asked heads of these institutions to proceed on leave irrespective of whether they have attained the compulsory retirement age and thus appointing new ones in their stead.
They thus submit that given the importance of these institutions and their effect on the security of the state, it was not intended for them to be removed at the will of the president.
They therefore sought, among others;
1.A declaration that per the constitution the president has no authority to terminate the appointment of these heads unless only upon proven stated misconduct or misbehavior established against them or incapacity to perform their functions by reason of infirmity of mind or body or death or retirement or upon resignation.
2. A declaration that upon assumption of office a new president has no power to make fresh appointment for these heads of institutions unless only upon proven stated misconduct or misbehavior established against them or incapacity to perform their functions by reason of infirmity of mind or body or death or retirement or upon resignation.
3. A declaration that the practice of appointing new persons to replace these heads upon the assumption of office of new governments in the absence of proven stated misconduct or misbehavior established against them or incapacity to perform their functions by reason of infirmity of mind or body or death or retirement or upon resignation is unconstitutional.
4. A consequential order to restrain or prevent the president of the republic from dismissing or removing or attempting to remove any of these heads unless only upon proven stated misconduct or misbehavior established against them or incapacity to perform their functions by reason of infirmity of mind or body or death or retirement or upon resignation.