2 NACOB officials in tango with board

The other NACOB officials are Mr Denis Adutwum Gyimah, Mr Timothy Abolimpoh, Mr Mutawakilu Yahaya Iddi and Mr Jerry John Kwesi Abiw.

Although the three policemen — Eric Darko Akuffo, Yakubu Issah and Peter Asong — were reinstated into the Ghana Police Service in December 2011, the NACOB officials were recalled only on February 11, this year.

However, three days after they had resumed duty, the Executive Secretary of NACOB, Mr Yaw Akrasi Sarpong, per a February 14, 2013 letter, invited the six officials to appear before a disciplinary panel to be investigated for misconduct, failure to perform in a proper manner duties reposed in them, abuse of office, breach of the confidence that NACOB reposed in them and conducting themselves in such a manner that tended to bring NACOB into disrepute.

But even before the disciplinary panel, chaired by Mr Francis Torkonoo, could start its work on February 18, 2013, two of the affected officials, Nana Sanzah Ezrah and Ms Fatimatu Abdulai, secured an interim injunction from the Human Rights Court to restrain the executive secretary, the governing board of the NACOB and the disciplinary panel from holding any disciplinary proceedings against the officials.

In response to the restraining order of the Human Rights Court, the executive secretary, on the same day, February 18, asked the affected officials to provide information on how they were appointed by NACOB.

The response of the officials was to have reached NACOB by February 20, 2013.

They were to explain how they got to know there were vacancies for employment at NACOB, whether their knowledge was a result of a direct advertisement from NACOB or an unclassified advertisement in one or more newspapers.

They were also required to explain whether the mode of their appointment by NACOB was talent-spotted or talent-identified by someone in the management of NACOB or the security services in Ghana.

The officials were also to state whether they wrote formal applications for employment, how many of such applications they wrote, who the application letters were addressed to, whether they appeared before an interview panel and what qualification they used to apply for the vacancies.

But a law firm, Kwame Gyan & Associates, in response to the request, informed the Executive Secretary of NACOB that “... the said memorandum amounts to a breach of the High Court order restraining the board from holding any disciplinary proceedings against our client”.

The firm, therefore, advised him to “comply with the order of the High Court, failing which your conduct may be cited for contempt of court”.

In another salvo to Ms Abdulai on February 26, 2013, the executive secretary asked her to explain in writing why she failed to respond to a legitimate and reasonable request and why disciplinary action should not be taken against her.

But her lawyers wrote back reminding the executive secretary that its client did not respond “to the said letter due to the injunction order of the court dated February 18, 2013”.

According to NACOB, it was pursuing such a path of disciplinary investigations because “discharge is not acquittal” and, therefore, it had the right to “try you administratively”.

But the affected officials argue that under their conditions of service, the disciplinary panel should have been set up first to investigate any staff for misconduct before proceeding to the law courts to prosecute them.

They, however, wondered why the panel would be set up to investigate them after the court had discharged them.

Sources at NACOB indicated that the Disciplinary Panel of the board started its work on Monday, February 25, 2013.

The panel is, however, yet to finish its interrogation of the first witness, Mr Iddi, who is due to reappear before the panel at 2 pm Monday, March 4, 2013.

Story by Albert K. Salia

Writers email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.