QUAYSON v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Edusei J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The government appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate the escape of five prisoners from the Ussher Fort Prison on 12 November 1979. A number of prison officers including the appellant appeared before the commission. A report was, in due course, submitted to the government. The government also released a White Paper on the commission's report and insofar as the appellant, who was Deputy Director of Prisons, was concerned, the government made the following statement:

"As regards Mr. S. B. Quayson, the commission found that he showed lack of concern and duty consciousness with respect to instructions to draft a letter to the Superintendent of Ussher Fort Prison to disperse the five escaped prisoners. However, the commission made no recommendation concerning him as to punishment which must have been an oversight or unintended omission. The government therefore directs that Mr. Quayson's services should be dispensed with. In line not only with action ordered against others involved in the whole sordid episode of the jail-break but also with the principles on house-cleaning and accountability as emphasised by the A.F.R.C. of which he was an enforcing officer."

It is quite clear from the White Paper that the government dispensed with the services of the appellant purporting to act on the findings [p.297] made against him by the Jail-break Commission. It becomes necessary therefore to consider whether there was evidence to support the commission's findings on which the government supposedly relied.

The facts leading to the appellant's involvement in the jail-break affair may briefly be stated as follows: The appellant had instructions from the Director of Prisons to draft a letter to disperse the five prisoners in Ussher Fort Prison. He did draft the letter and gave it to the director's own secretary who typed the letter for the director's signature. This in a nutshell was what was expected of the appellant; he carried out his assignment to draft the letter to be typed, and it was signed by his immediate superior - the Director of Prisons.

There is no evidence that he delayed in drafting the letter, and the director himself who gave instructions for the draft letter was aware of the restlessness of the five prisoners at Ussher Fort Prison, and they had even requested him to see them. In these circumstances, it was, in our view, the responsibility of the director to see to it that the letter went to t