By Gifty Amofa
Accra, Oct. 11, GNA – Graduate Chief Inspectors who were excluded from a special promotion amnesty in 2021 have alleged that proper procedures were overlooked during the process.
They informed a Human Rights Court in Accra that the amnesty, which promoted certain junior rank personnel, violated the Constitutional Instruments (CI) 76 and the Police Service Regulations of 2012, leading to their non-promotion.
Chief Inspector Christopher Okpata, the first plaintiff in a suit against the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Attorney General (AG), stated during cross-examination at the Human Rights Court that CI 76 does not mention anything about amnesty.
Mr. Kwaku Boakye Boateng, representing the defendants, asked if the plaintiff recognized that CI 76 established the Police Council, which determines the appropriate rank.
Chief Inspector Okpata affirmed this but clarified that “our case is quite different from CI 76, where amnesty was given.”
“Are you aware that under CI 76, officers in the Service are categorized into junior and senior officers?” Mr. Boateng asked.
Chief Inspector Okpata responded, “My Lord, yes, but in our case, CI 76 was set aside, and amnesty was given; there is nothing about amnesty in CI 76.”
Mr Boateng then inquired, “The junior ranks start from Constable to Chief Inspector, and the senior ranks range from Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) to Inspector General of Police?” Chief Inspector Okpata confirmed this.
Mr Boateng sought to confirm whether the plaintiff knew that CI 76 outlined the appointing authorities for each rank in the Police Service, to which the plaintiff agreed.
He explained that in their case, CI 76 was not used to establish such authority.
When Mr. Boateng asked if junior officers are appointed by the Police Appointment and Promotion Board, the plaintiff confirmed that it was correct.
“From the ranks of ASP to Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACOP or ACP), they are appointed by the Appointment Authorities in consultation with the Police Council; is that correct?” Mr. Boateng asked, to which the plaintiff affirmed.
Mr. Boateng then stated that the appointment of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCOP) to IGP is done by the President with the advice of the Police Council. Chief Inspector Okpata denied this, clarifying that it was the ACOP to Commissioner of Police who are appointed by the President in consultation with the Police Council.
In a suit brought by the affected officers at the High Court, presided over by Justice Frederick Tetteh, the officers stated that on February 8, 2021, the Inspector General of Police (IGP) issued directives to Commanders instructing that police personnel who graduated from training schools on or before December 31, 2008, and had earned degrees by December 31, 2020, were required to submit certified copies of their degree certificates to Headquarters by February 26, 2021, for a special exercise.
The affected personnel complied with these directives, and on July 23, 2021, a series of special administrative promotions were announced by the IGP under a special amnesty.
Under the special amnesty, General Corporals were granted a one-step promotion with three incremental jumps, advancing them to the rank of Sergeants effective July 21, 2021.
General Sergeants received a similar one-step promotion with three incremental jumps, moving them up to the rank of Inspectors effective July 7, 2021.
Inspectors were promoted to Chief Inspectors; however, the plaintiffs, who were Chief Inspectors, were deprived of their next rank, leaving them at the same level as their junior counterparts.
The plaintiffs initially approached the Inspector General of Police, the former interior minister, and the Vice President with a petition but did not receive a favourable response.
Consequently, they filed a lawsuit in the High Court.
The case is currently in the hearing stage and was adjourned until Thursday, October 10, 2024.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, for the court to order the Service to promote the plaintiffs under the special amnesty, granting them one step up with three incremental credits to the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police, like the promotions received by their juniors.
They argue that they should also be considered for special amnesty with incremental credits that would allow for direct entry into the Police Academy, especially since others have received credits that facilitated their promotions to higher ranks.
The plaintiffs say they feel demoralised because their long service had not been adequately recognised, while those with significantly less time in the service had been rewarded generously.
GNA