July 13, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Choro Padoh K. Hamza, a General Constable at Wa Central Police Station, challenged his dismissal following a jailbreak during his overnight duty. After five remand prisoners escaped and two were later recaptured, the Upper West Regional Disciplinary Board convened a formal inquiry under L.I. 993, and an adjudicating officer recommended dismissal, which the Regional Board endorsed. Because dismissal is a major penalty, the Central Disciplinary Board approved it. Hamza sued in the High Court, which held the process violated Regulation 16(d). On appeal, the Court of Appeal majority reversed, holding Regulation 16(c) applied to constables and the procedure was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the majority, clarifying the interplay of Regulations 3(3), 16(c) and 16(d), rejecting arguments that re-arrest of escapees excused the misconduct, explaining review does not require a fresh hearing, and dismissing the appeal.
PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC:-
1.This case arose out of the conduct of disciplinary proceedings within the Ghana Police Service.
Facts and background
2.The plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter ‘plaintiff’), was a General Constable on duty as Counter NCO at Wa Central Police Station on 21st March 2011 on the 10.00 pm – 6.00 am shift. He took over duty with one female Station Orderly. According to him, at the time he took over duty there was one female remand prisoner behind the counter, sixteen (16) remand prisoners and ten (10) suspects in cells.
3.At about 2.10am on 22nd March 2011, the inmates successfully opened the cell gates and five of them escaped. Two were later re-captured with the help of some people.
4.The Regional Disciplinary Board of Upper West Region instituted proceedings under Regulation 4 (3) of Police Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1974 (L.I. 993).The officer nominated to conduct a formal inquiry into the respondent’s conduct made findings and recommendation of dismissal. This recommendation was endorsed by the Regional Disciplinary Board. A dismissal being a major penalty under the Regulations, required approval by the Central Disciplinary Board under Regulation 3 (3) of L I 993. On 20th June 2012 the Central Disciplinary Board under Regulation 3 (1) (a) of L I 993 approved the penalty.
5.The appellant was informed by letter that he had been dismissed from the Service.
“Following a Service Enquiry held into your conduct by ASP/MR TWUM BARIMAH PATRICK/LAWRA Dist. under Regulation 16(d) of the Police Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1974 (LI 993) on charge of MISCONDUCT: MISCONDUCT6 CONTRARY TO SECTION 17(K) OF THE POLICE SERVICE ACT 1970 (ACT 350) THE Central Disciplinary Board has, after reviewing the record of proceedings and considering the findings of the adjudicating officer, imposed sentences on you as following
(i)No. 44204 G/Const. Choro Padoh K. Hamza – Dismissal
on you in exercise of the powers vested in the Board under Regulation 3(i)(a) of the Police Service (Disciplinary Proceedings), Regulations 1974 (L.I.993)”
He was also informed of his right to appeal to the Inspector General of Police within six weeks of the decision under Regulation 23 of LI 993. He did not pursue the appeal. Instead after a year, he instituted an action on 11th July 2013 at the Human Rights Division of the High Court, Accra seeking the following reliefs:
a.“A declaration that the decision of the Central Disciplinar