The officers captured on the leaked tape should face charges, according to the recommendation of the Atta Akyea Committee, which looked into the tape regarding plans by some senior police officers to remove the Inspector-General of Police.
The Committee stated that the three other officers needed to face perjury charges even though they cleared IGP Dr. George Akuffo Dampare of any wrongdoing.
A portion of a committee draft report that was made available to the media stated: “The three senior police officers namely, COP Alex Mensah, Supt. George Lysander Asare and Supt. Eric Emmanuel Gyebi involved in the conspiracy to remove the IGP should be referred for further investigation and possible prosecution for perjury under the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) and professional misconduct under the Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350) and the Police Service Regulations, 2012, (C.I. 76).
“In order to safeguard the sanctity of the appointment of an IGP and, in particular, shield the appointment process from perceptions of partisanship and political “manipulation”, there is the need to review/amend article 202(1) of the Constitution, 1992, Police Service Act, (Act 350) and related legislation/statutes fundamentally to secure the independence of the office of the IGP,” the advice was read.
The draft report also set the stage for a dramatic change in the legal system of the nation.
Recognizing the vulnerability of the IGP appointment process, the Committee suggested a comprehensive overhaul of the legal and constitutional frameworks.
Below are details of the recommendations in the draft report
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the issues raised before the Committee and resolved by the investigations and evidence uncovered by the Committee, the Committee makes the following recommendations for consideration by the Rt. Honourable Speaker;
The three senior police officers namely, COP Alex Mensah, Supt. George Lysander Asare and Supt. Eric Emmanuel Gyebi involved in the conspiracy to remove the IGP should be referred for further investigation and possible prosecution for perjury under the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) and professional misconduct under the Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350) and the Police Service Regulations, 2012, (C.I. 76).
In order to safeguard the sanctity of the appointment of an IGP and, in particular, shield the appointment process from perceptions of partisanship and political “manipulation”, there is the need to review/amend article 202(1) of the Constitution, 1992, Police Service Act, (Act 350) and related legislation/statutes fundamentally to secure the independence of the office of the IGP.
The office of the IGP shall be on the same terms and condition of service of a Justice of the Court of Appeal except that the tenure of office shall be non-renewable after the attainment of compulsory retirement of sixty years (60).
A serving/sitting IGP shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incompetence; incapacity to perform the functions of the office by reason of infirmity of body or mind and related misconduct provided under the Police Service Act or Regulations.
Relatedly, parliament should expedite action on the enactment of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers Bill to address professional dilemmas that may lead to conflict of interest.
Additionally, safeguarding the sanctity of the election security management, the IGP, as head of the National Election Security Task Force, should ensure transparency in the deployment of security personnel engaged in election security management operations and, where such personnel are found to have acted unprofessionally in the discharge of their duties, including in violent intimidation of a voter, they should be held accountable by the GPS or the appropriate external accountable authority/body.
In order to promote professional and adherence to good practice, the Police Council and/or POMAB should put in place a programme of continuous professional training of police personnel at all levels regarding the legal, policy and normative frameworks (regional, national and international) for regulating professional, ethical policing, as well as professional dilemmas associated with conflict of interest. In this connection, it is worthwhile for the GPS to collaborate with key stakeholders, particularly the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), the Office of the Attorney-General and Ministry for Justice and related civil society actors to achieve this objective.
Urgent steps should be taken by the Police Council towards establishment of an Independent Police Complaint Commission (IPCC) modelled on global good/best practices pertaining in jurisdictions such as South Africa, England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Canada, Malasia, etc., to replace the existing Police Professional Standard Bureau (PPSB). PPSB currently serves as as an internal accountable mechanism dedicated to maintenance of professional standards by checking acts of misconduct and unprofessional/unethical conduct involving police personnel. The need for the establishment of IPCC is anchored in the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights Resolution 13a, 2006 on “Police Reform, Accountability and Civilian Oversight in Africa”, which aims at enhancement of peace and security, checking abuse of power and professional misconduct by police personnel. The proposed IPCC primarily would function as an independent oversight body Ombudsman) for purposes of ensuring internal and external accountability relative to the GPS.
Strict enforcement of the provisions under the Police Service Act 1970 (Act 350) and the Police Service Regulations 2012 (C.I. 76), prohibiting serving police officers from engaging in activities outside his or her duties as a police officer which may lead to political controversy as the Committee found for the three senior police officers in this enquiry.
