April 15, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana High Court (His Lordship Eric Kyei Baffour) ruled on an application by Corporal Francis Lorlemtey seeking certiorari to quash the Central Disciplinary Boards decision dismissing him from the Ghana Police Service. Lorlemtey and G/Corporal Ernest Kensah were detained after checking into a hotel in Garu with arms; at a Regional Service Inquiry, ASP William Apraku acquitted Lorlemtey and found Kensah guilty. The Northern Regional Disciplinary Board approved the acquittal, but the Central Disciplinary Board later overturned it and imposed dismissal on Lorlemtey. The court held that C.I. 76 authorizes the Central Board to review a finding or decision, so jurisdiction existed. However, the Boards finding that Lorlemtey possessed arms was unsupported by the record, breaching article 191(b)s just cause requirement. Certiorari issued; the decision was quashed and Lorlemtey reinstated.
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