The Supreme Court has declared moot an injunction application filed by IMANI Africa and security analyst Dr. Kwesi Aning, which sought to prevent President John Mahama from removing the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and other heads of security agencies until a substantive case is resolved in May 2025.
A five-member panel, led by Justice Baffoe-Bonney, ruled that the pending case did not justify halting the President’s constitutional authority to execute his administrative duties.
The plaintiffs filed the application amidst widespread speculation that President Mahama intended to remove the IGP and other security chiefs. They argued that any such action would be prejudicial, especially as the substantive case challenging the legality of these removals was still under consideration by the court.
Plaintiffs’ Claims
In their legal submission, the applicants sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the President and relevant councils from removing or dismissing the heads of the Ghana Police Service, the Ghana Immigration Service, the Ghana National Fire Service, and the Ghana Prisons Service.
The plaintiffs contended that removing these officials before the court’s determination of the case would amount to unfair treatment and could compromise the integrity of the process. They argued that the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo, as the harm to the plaintiffs outweighed any potential inconvenience to the President or the state.
The application stated:
“Without a doubt, this suit raises very serious constitutional issues, and the balance of convenience heavily tilts in favor of the Applicants.”
“The Defendant suffers no injury should the application be granted, especially as the decision is due within a short period. Furthermore, in the event the Plaintiffs do not succeed in the substantive case, the Executive can still exercise its authority to remove the security heads.”
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the application, emphasizing that the President’s constitutional mandate to appoint and remove public officials cannot be unduly restricted by pending litigation. Justice Baffoe-Bonney reiterated that the judiciary must not interfere unnecessarily with the Executive’s ability to govern.
Background
The suit emerged following heightened rumors that President Mahama was on the verge of reshuffling key security leadership. Despite the legal challenge, the President proceeded with the dismissals, arguing that such actions were within his constitutional powers.
The substantive case, which raises broader constitutional questions regarding the President’s authority to appoint and remove security heads, is scheduled for hearing in May 2025. Until then, the ruling effectively clears the path for the President to continue with his administrative decisions.
This development underscores the delicate balance between the judiciary’s oversight role and the executive’s authority in a constitutional democracy.
Story by: Mercy Addai Turkson #ahotoronline.com
