The Supreme Court has ruled that a joint application from IMANI Ghana and security expert Professor Kwesi Aning against the President’s potential removal of the Inspector-General of Police (Dr. George Akuffo Dampare) and other security agency heads has become moot.
This was after the apex Court panel of five presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie heard submissions from the parties on Tuesday.
The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the President from making any changes until the apex court has dealt with the substantive matter.
But, the IGP and the other security heads whose interest were being protected by the interlocutory injunction have already been changed.
On Tuesday, March 25, 2925, during the court hearing, Lawyer Kofi Bentil argued that the injunction was necessary to prevent any potential overreach of the court’s powers.
However, Adwoa Obeng, a Principal State Attorney, for the republic, countered that events had already overtaken the relief sought by the applicant, making the injunction unnecessary.
The panel of five which also includes Justices Amadu Tanko, Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Samuel Asiedu, ultimately concluded that the action had become moot, as the President’s actions were not intended to overreach the Supreme Court.
“We have come to the conclusion that the action has become moot,” the Supreme Court said.
Meanwhile, the substantive action has been adjourned to May 7, 2025 for determination.
In the meantime, the President remains free to perform his public and administrative functions pending the outcome of the matter which will have a future consequences.
“The pendency of that action does not stop the President from performing his public and administrative function, and it is for this reason that it cannot be said that the action of the president was done to overreach the Supreme Court,” the Supreme Court said.
Background
On March 13, 2025, Imani Ghana and security expert Professor Kwesi Aning jointly filed a suit at the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the President from removing the Inspector-General of Police and some other heads of the security agencies until an ongoing case relating to the matter is decided by the court in May, 2025.
The injunction application was premised on an earlier actions to seeking for constitutional interpretation.
According to the plaintiff, the said security heads will be unfairly treated if they are removed before the matter which is pending before the Supreme Court is heard.
The development comes on the back of raging reports that the President intends to remove the Inspector-General of Police and other heads of security agencies (who have already been removed)
In the suit, the plaintiffs prayed the court that “In the circumstance, I humbly and respectfully pray the honourable court for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent its principals, including His Excellency the President of the Republic, the respective Council of the Ghana Immigration Service, Ghana Police Service, National Fire Service, Ghana Prisons Service, and whomsoever or however described from removing, terminating, dismissing, sacking, suspending or whichever way described; 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 from their respective positions as Heads of the Ghana Prisons Service, the Ghana Immigration Service, the Ghana National Fire Service and the Ghana Police Service pending the final determination of the suit”.
“That without a doubt, the suit, which raises very serious constitutional issues and with the balance of convenience heavily tilting in favour of the Applicants this application has merit.
“That the Defendant suffers no injury, should the application be granted, especially since, the decision is in no way far to be delivered; and more so, since, in the event Plaintiffs do not emerge victorious in the final action, the Executive will not be proscribed in exercising their rights of removal of any of these heads.
“That this is an apposite case which is just and convenient, that the instant application is granted”.
