The Vice President of IMANI Africa, Kofi Bentil, has strongly condemned the government’s decision to appoint a new Inspector General of Police (IGP) while a Supreme Court ruling on the removal of the former IGP is pending.

According to him, President John Mahama’s decision to relieve Dr. George Akuffo Dampare of his duties and replace him with COP Christian Tetteh Yohuno is unacceptable, describing it as contemptuous of the highest court of the land.

• Read also: President Mahama swears in COP Tetteh Yohuno as new IGP

Speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story with Fostina Sarfo on Friday, March 14, Mr. Bentil stated that 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.

“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 explained that although the Supreme Court has heard arguments from all parties and scheduled a date for its ruling, the President has proceeded with appointing a new IGP—an act he believes directly disregards judicial authority.

• Read also: Mahama appoints COP Yohunu as new IGP

“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.

Mr Bentil argued that this case is not about specific individuals, such as former IGP George Akuffo Dampare or newly appointed IGP Christian Tetteh Yohonu, but rather about safeguarding the integrity of the security system.

“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.”

Mr. Bentil stated that it is very unfortunate that the former IGP has been replaced, noting that he hopes that when the Supreme Court ruling is delivered, and if it is in their favor, the necessary corrections will be made.

Background

Imani Ghana and security expert Prof Kwesi Aning have jointly filed a suit at the Supreme Court, seeking to restrain the President from removing the Inspector-General of Police and other heads of security agencies until an ongoing case relating to the matter is decided in May 2025.

According to the plaintiffs, the security heads in question would be unfairly treated if they were removed before the Supreme Court delivers its ruling.

The development follows widespread reports that the President intends to dismiss the Inspector-General of Police and other key security officials.

In their suit, the plaintiffs prayed the court to grant an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, including His Excellency the President of the Republic, and the respective councils of the Ghana Immigration Service, Ghana Police Service, National Fire Service, and Ghana Prisons Service, from removing, terminating, dismissing, sacking, suspending, or otherwise interfering with the positions of the Director-General of the Ghana Prisons Service, the Comptroller of the Ghana Immigration Service, the Director-General of the National Fire Service, and the Inspector-General of Police.

The injunction is sought pending the final determination of the case.

The plaintiffs further argued that the suit raises serious constitutional issues, with the balance of convenience heavily favouring the applicants.

They contended that the government would suffer no harm should the court grant the application, as the verdict is imminent.

Moreover, should the plaintiffs fail in their case, the Executive would still have the authority to remove the security heads in question.

The suit concluded by stating that the application is just, appropriate, and necessary under the circumstances, urging the court to grant the injunction to prevent any premature dismissals before the case is fully adjudicated.