Supreme Court rules as moot injunction application restraining the President from removing IGP

The Supreme Court has ruled as moot, an injunction application by IMANI Africa and Security Expert Kwesi Aning to restrain President John Mahama from removing the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and other Security agency heads until the substantive case is determined in May 2025.

The 5-member panel presided over by Justice Baffoe Bonney held that the pendency of the case shouldn’t stop the President from carrying out his administrative duties.

The joint suit was seeking to restrain the President from removing the Inspector-General of Police and some other heads of the security agencies until an ongoing case relating to the matter is decided by the court in May 2025.

According to the plaintiff, the said security heads will be unfairly treated if they are removed before the matter which is pending before the Supreme Court is heard.

The applicants filed the action when rumour became rife that President Mahama was about to remove the Inspector-General of Police and other heads of security agencies.

The President proceeded with his intentions anyway.

In the suit, the plaintiffs prayed the court that “In the circumstance, I humbly and respectfully pray the honourable court for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent its principals, including His Excellency the President of the Republic, the respective Council of the Ghana Immigration Service, Ghana Police Service, National Fire.

“Service, Ghana Prisons Service, and whomsoever or however described from removing, terminating, dismissing, sacking, suspending or whichever way described; the Director General of the Ghana Prisons Service, the Comptroller of the Ghana Immigration Service, the Director General of the National Fire Service and the Inspector General of Police from their respective positions as Heads of the Ghana Prisons Service, the Ghana Immigration Service, the Ghana National Fire Service and the Ghana Police Service pending the final determination of the suit”.

The suit further noted “That without a doubt, the suit, which raises very serious constitutional issues and with the balance of convenience heavily tilting in favour of the Applicants this application has merit.

“That the Defendant suffers no injury, should the application be granted, especially since, the decision is in no way far to be delivered; and more so, since, in the event Plaintiffs do not emerge victorious in the final action, the Executive will not be proscribed in exercising their rights of removal of any of these heads.

“That this is an apposite case which is just and convenient, that the instant application is granted”.