2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a Police Officer who was initially acquitted of misconduct by a Regional Disciplinary Board but later dismissed by the Central Disciplinary Board. The Applicant sought judicial review on the grounds of ultra vires action and violation of constitutional rights. The High Court found that while the Central Disciplinary Board acted within its powers, its decision to dismiss the Applicant was not supported by evidence and thus violated Article 191(b) of the Constitution. As a result, the court quashed the Central Disciplinary Board's decision and ordered the reinstatement of the Applicant.
RULING
The Applicant, until the 18th of May, 2018 was a Police Officer of the rank of a corporal. He was charged together with one G/Corporal Ernest Kensah, for misconduct, contrary to Regulation 82(1) under Police Service Regulations, 2012, C.I 76. The two are said to have travelled from Tamale to Garu when they checked into a hotel with arms. Based on a tip off that they were robbers the Police and Military swooped in on them and took them to Bolgatanga and eventually to Accra. The two appeared before a Regional Service Inquiry presided over by ASP William Apraku, the Adjudicating Officer, who found Corporal Kensah guilty for keeping arms and ammunitions without authority but found the Applicant not guilty. He was acquitted and discharged. This was approved by the Regional Disciplinary Board.
Upon review by the Central Disciplinary Board it rather overturned the concurrence of the Regional Disciplinary Board of the determination by the Adjudicating Officer, who found the Applicant not guilty and substituted a penalty of dismissal of the Applicant. It is this decision of dismissal that has precipitated the present application whereby the Applicant has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Procedure Rules, C.I 47 for orders in the nature of certiorari directed at the Respondents to bring to the court for the purpose of being quashed the decision of the Central Disciplinary Board to substitute a dismissal in place of discharge and acquittal against the Applicant.
THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents have contested the claim of the Applicant that the Northern Regional Disciplinary Board in accordance with Regulation 86(4) and (5) of C. I 76 ordered a service enquiry by appointing an Adjudicating Officer to conduct the enquiry, and that the findings and recommendations were reviewed by the Regional Disciplinary Board and agreed with the Adjudicating Officer and was transmitted to the Central Disciplinary Board. To Respondents in accordance with the mandate of the Central Disciplinary Board under Regulation 91(2) of C. I. 72 the Central Disciplinary Board reviewed the record and imposed a punishment of dismissal. Respondents deny that when an Adjudicating Officer serves a written charge on a Defendant, he is obliged to inform the Defendant of a right to submit a written statement in explanation of an offence and that there was no obligation for the Defendant to be informed that his