THE REPUBLIC v THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION EX-PARTE: MOSES AHIAKPA

This is an application by Moses Ahiakpa, the applicant herein, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court praying for an order to bring up; and to be quashed a decision of the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI) which resulted in the removal of the applicant from the Bureau of National Investigation. The decision, the subject, of this application is dated 1st August 2011. It has been exhibited by the applicant as Exh ‘A’. It is signed by the Director of BNI, in the person of Yaw Donkor. The Bureau of National Investigation, shall hereafter be referred to simply as the respondent.

The relevant part of Exh ‘A’ reads as follows:

“2. The Trial Panel found you guilty of two (2) counts of the offences bordering on misconduct contrary to section 76(1) (d) of the Civil Service Law 1993, PNDC L 327 and recommended a punishment of reduction in rank pursuant to section 78(1) (c) of the Civil Service Law 1993, PNDC L 327.

3.The Disciplinary Board in reviewing the Proceedings of the Trial Panel substituted a punishment of REMOVAL as provided for in Section 78(1) (b) of the Civil Service Law 1993, PNDC L 327 which was endorsed by the Director/BNI.

4.Consequently, you are removed from the Bureau with effect from 1st August, 2011.

5.You are to hand over any property of the Bureau entrusted in your custody and avail yourself to your Regional Commander to be sworn out.”

The decision contained in Exh ‘A’ brought the contract of employment of the applicant with the respondent to an abrupt end. I have used the phrase ‘abrupt end’ because in the normal scheme of things, the applicant would have retired from active service upon attaining the age of 60 years. This was never to be because of the reasons expressed in Exh ‘A’. The applicant is peeved, naturally, about his premature exit from his employment and has sought in this application to impugn the decision (Exh ‘A’); and the decision making process itself on a couple grounds. The grounds include procedural impropriety and the lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent and its agents in taking the decision contained in Exh ‘A’. The applicant holds the view therefore that his purported removal from office can not pass the litmus test of legal scrutiny.

The question to answer is this: What engendered the removal of the applicant from office? Until his removal, the applicant had been a faithful servant of the respondent for 23 years. The inference is that he