In a case before the Human Rights Court in Accra, Graduate Chief Inspectors excluded from a promotional amnesty in 2021 have claimed that established procedures were bypassed, leading to their non-promotion. The plaintiffs, represented by Chief Inspector Christopher Okpata, argue that the promotion process violated Constitutional Instrument (CI) 76 and the Police Service Regulations of 2012. During the proceedings, Okpata emphasized that CI 76 did not include provisions regarding amnesty, which was critical in understanding their exclusion from the promotional ranks. This assertion was juxtaposed against defense questions, revealing complexities within the guidelines regarding ranks and promotions as outlined in CI 76.
Throughout cross-examination, the defense attorney, Mr. Kwaku Boakye Boateng, sought to clarify the legal framework provided by CI 76, which establishes the hierarchical structure within the Police Service. He pointed out that junior officers are appointed by the Police Appointment and Promotion Board, while the recruitment of senior ranks, such as Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) to Inspector General of Police (IGP), follows a different protocol involving the President’s advice. Despite this, Chief Inspector Okpata maintained that the application of amnesty in the promotion process deviated from the stipulations indicated in CI 76.
The root of the plaintiffs’ grievance dates back to February 8, 2021, when the Inspector General of Police issued a directive for certain personnel to provide degree certificates in light of a special promotion exercise. Following compliance with these directives, a special amnesty was announced on July 23, 2021, which benefitted junior personnel with significant promotions yet excluded those at the Chief Inspector rank. The promotion policy granted General Corporals and Sergeants advancements with multiple incremental jumps, while Chief Inspectors like the plaintiffs faced stagnation, prompting them to pursue legal action after initial appeals to higher authorities.
The plaintiffs emphasized the significant emotional toll of their exclusion from the promotions, arguing that their years of service should have afforded them at least equal recognition as their junior counterparts. They contend that their long tenure in the police force went unnoticed while less experienced officers received discernible benefits through the amnesty program. In their eyes, the promotion discrepancies not only undermine their professional accomplishments but also affect morale within the police ranks.
Following the initiation of their complaint through various channels including authorities such as the former interior minister and the Vice President, the plaintiffs were left disillusioned when they did not receive any constructive responses. Thus, they resorted to filing a formal lawsuit in the High Court, seeking a judicial remedy to rectify what they perceive as inadequate recognition of their service. The case emphasizes the need for fair treatment in promotions across ranks within the police service, adhering to established protocols.
As the lawsuit progresses, with the next court date set for October 10, 2024, the plaintiffs are hopeful for a ruling that acknowledges their contributions and corrects the perceived injustices faced during the promotion process. They seek an order for their elevation to the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police with acknowledgment of incremental credits similar to those granted to junior ranks. Through this legal pursuit, the plaintiffs aim to not only attain personal redress but to set a precedent for equitable treatment within the police force, ensuring that long service and commitment are duly rewarded.
