The Supreme Court has dismissed an injunction application filed by policy think tank IMANI Africa and security expert Dr. Kwesi Aning, seeking to restrain President John Mahama from removing the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and other security agency heads until a substantive case challenging the President’s powers in such matters is determined.
A five-member panel, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and including Justices Amadu Tanko, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, and Samuel Asiedu, ruled the application moot, holding that the pendency of the substantive case should not prevent the President from carrying out his administrative duties.
The plaintiffs argued that the President’s decision to remove and replace the IGP and other heads of security agencies could unfairly prejudice the court’s pending ruling on the legality of such actions.
Represented by lawyer Kofi Bentil, they contended that allowing the removals would effectively undermine the authority of the court.
Bentil maintained that “an unlawful order should not confer legitimacy,” insisting that the President’s actions amounted to an attempt to “overreach the powers of this court.”
He further argued that the court’s ruling on the substantive matter could reverse the President’s decisions.
However, the bench expressed concerns about personalizing the application by focusing on the IGP’s position.
Justice Mensa-Bonsu highlighted the sensitive nature of security appointments, stating that if intelligence reports suggest the need for a change in leadership, the President must have the latitude to act without public scrutiny compromising national security.
Justice Tanko commended Bentil for bringing a public interest case but cautioned against creating the impression that the action was aimed at weakening the authority of a particular President.
He also questioned whether it was fair to exclude newly appointed security heads — who could be affected by any future ruling — from the process.
Opposing the application, Principal State Attorney Adwoa Obeng argued that the President’s actions had rendered the application moot, as the removals had already taken place. She asserted that an injunction could not restrain events that had already occurred.
The court ultimately agreed, concluding that “the pendency of the substantive action does not stop the President from performing his public and administrative functions.”
The substantive case is set for judgment on May 7, 2025.
