In a significant legal matter currently being discussed in Accra, Mr. Kwaku Boakye Boateng, a Senior State Attorney representing the Attorney General (AG), has raised concerns regarding the actions of former Inspector General of Police (IGP), Mr. James Oppong-Boanuh, specifically questioning the legality of the amnesty granted in 2021 to promote junior police officers. During a recent cross-examination of Chief Inspector Okpata, the plaintiff in this case, Boateng challenged the decision by positing that the amnesty was an inappropriate action taken by the IGP. Chief Inspector Okpata countered this assertion by highlighting that while such practices of granting amnesty for promotions have been longstanding within the Police Service, the real issue stemmed from the distinct exclusion of Chief Inspectors from the promotion process, relegating them to a disadvantaged position despite their years of service.
Chief Inspector Okpata articulated that the disparity in promotions led to considerable dissatisfaction among Chief Inspectors, who have dedicated 25 to 30 years of service. While junior officers received significant promotions referred to as “step one” with multiple incremental jumps, Chief Inspectors were recognized solely for their tenure without receiving any proportional advancements. This seemed particularly unjust to those who have served for decades yet found themselves in a stagnant position while less experienced officers advanced in rank. Okpata expressed that the longstanding expectation that Chief Inspectors with recognized degrees would be given a promotional pathway to the Police Academy was unmet, thus intensifying their sense of grievance regarding the 2021 amnesty.
The crux of the legal issue involves a suit filed by Okpata and other graduate Chief Inspectors against the IGP and the Attorney General, asserting that the promotions extended to junior officers via the amnesty was in contravention of Constitutional Instrument (CI) 76 and the Police Service Regulations of 2012. The plaintiffs argue that their exclusion from this special promotion undermined their rights and disregarded the established regulations that govern promotions within the Police Service. As part of the court proceedings, Mr. Boateng probed into the framework established by CI 76, which designates assessment committees tasked with making promotion recommendations and overseeing necessary measures.
In explaining their standpoint, Okpata acknowledged awareness of the procedural framework but emphasized that specific instructions from the IGP and AG resulted in the exclusion of Chief Inspectors from the amnesty, despite their qualifications. Their contention was that the amnesty communication lacked clarity regarding the eligibility of Chief Inspectors, leading to what they consider an arbitrary decision. Boateng also inquired if there were any formal examination requirements for entering the Police Academy which Okpata confirmed, noting that participation in the promotional examination was mandatory for Chief Inspectors but did not guarantee recognition as per the amnesty granted to junior officers.
The plaintiffs argued for reform in how promotions are handled, insisting that the court should mandate the defendants to reconsider their case for inclusion in the special amnesty promotion and the opportunity to ascend to the Police Academy. Their collective effort aims to rectify the perceived injustices that have arisen within the promotion framework and to advocate for a more equitable treatment that recognizes their years of service and academic qualifications. As the case unfolded, Justice Frederick Tetteh presiding over the Human Rights Court determined that further deliberation was necessary and subsequently adjourned the case until October 29, 2024, allowing more time for evaluation of the arguments presented.
In conclusion, the ongoing proceedings highlight critical issues concerning fairness in promotion systems within the Police Service and raise fundamental questions about the adherence to established regulations when it comes to personnel management. The outcome of this case could potentially set a precedent for how promotions are administered in the future, influencing the rights of serving officers and reaffirming the importance of equitable and transparent processes in the public service sector. This litigation not only underscores the grievances of Chief Inspectors but also calls into question the broader implications of administrative decisions that can markedly affect morale and service integrity among law enforcement personnel.
