The Ghana Police Service has appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s January 22, 2026, verdict in favour of 40 aggrieved Chief Inspectors.
It wants the apex court to reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment and affirm the High Court’s judgment.
The unanimous 3-0 verdict ordered the Service to promote the officers and grant them consequential financial benefits, taking effect from the date they should have been promoted, and to implement the order within six months.
The notice of appeal states that the Court of Appeal erred in law by ordering the Police Council, the Inspector General of Police, and the Police Appointments and Promotions Advisory Board to promote the affected personnel under the lapsed 2021 Amnesty Programme. Instead, it should have required compliance with the established procedures governing the promotion of senior officers under the Police Service Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 76).
The notice states that the appointment and promotion of police officers in the Service are regulated by the Police Service Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 76).
It argues that the Court of Appeal improperly compelled the Advisory Board, an administrative body, to replicate and extend the lapsed 2021 Amnesty Programme to senior officers, contrary to mandatory procedures.
It adds that the Court treated a discretionary administrative amnesty programme applicable to junior ranks as conferring a binding entitlement on all officers holding degrees.
“The administrative benefit granted to junior ranks does not create a legal right in favour of the affected personnel for automatic promotion to the senior rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP),” it states. “Such promotion is governed strictly by the criteria and requirements stipulated in C.I. 76.”
The Police Service is also dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s finding that the failure of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to recommend the Chief Inspectors for promotion amounted to discrimination and unfair treatment.
To the Defendant/Respondent/Appellant (Ghana Police Service), the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the IGP does not have unilateral authority to promote officers to the rank of ASP, explaining that “promotions to the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) require the involvement of other statutory bodies, including the Police Council and the Police Appointments and Promotions Advisory Board.”
It adds that the Court recognised that no officer in circumstances similar to those of the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondents — the affected Chief Inspectors — was treated differently.
The officers who benefited from the Amnesty Programme were junior-ranked, holding positions below Chief Inspector Maximum, the highest junior rank, and did not include officers at the Chief Inspector Maximum level, such as the respondents.
Thus, the Court of Appeal erred in law in granting orders directing the Police Council and the Police Appointments and Promotions Advisory Board to take steps to promote the respondents within six months, together with consequential financial benefits to take retrospective effect, it states.
The Appellant contends that the court’s orders improperly compel statutory bodies to exercise discretionary powers in a prescribed manner and within a fixed timeframe, which falls outside the court’s jurisdiction.
It stresses that the Court of Appeal thereby interfered with the statutory framework governing police promotions and disregarded the established legal and procedural requirements under the Police Service Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 76).
Again, it says the Court effectively deprived the Police Council of its statutory authority to assess officers and to follow the legally mandated procedures under C.I. 76, thereby creating a promotional pathway for senior police officers not recognised under C.I. 76 and exceeding its jurisdiction.
The Appellant also says the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Police Council and the Police Appointments and Promotions Advisory Board to subject the respondents to the appropriate procedures while simultaneously predetermining the outcome of those procedures by ordering their promotion.
The judgment, it adds, was against the weight of the evidence.
In February 2025, the High Court dismissed the applicants’ suit alleging an unfair denial of promotion.
The officers, who had served 25 to 30 years longer than their juniors, contended they had been unjustly excluded from a special promotion amnesty exercise that promoted degree holders who obtained their qualifications before 2020.
The police officers argued that junior officers benefited from the exercise, while they were congratulated but denied direct entry into the Police Academy — a prerequisite for promotion to Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP).
The claims included seeking direct promotion into the Academy and compensation for income lost due to stalled career progression, resulting from the Service’s unjustifiable refusal to promote them.
However, in his judgment on February 5, 2025, Justice Frederick Tetteh said the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim on the preponderance of the evidence, adding that their attainment of higher academic qualifications did not entitle them to promotion by reason of that qualification alone.
He said that, depending on the mode of recruitment, entry to the Police Academy is either by competitive examination or by special recommendation, in line with the Police Service Regulations.
The High Court also encouraged the plaintiffs to continue writing the entrance examination, as they may find favour in the future.
The officers then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ruled in their favour. That verdict is now being contested by the Police Service.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source: www.myjoyonline.com