REPUBLIC vs. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE; EX PARTE OBLIE [1979]DLHC1630

Date	1979-07-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1630

MENSA BOISON J.

E. N. MOORE FOR THE APPLICANT.

AMUI CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLHC1630
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE; EX PARTE OBLIE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 328<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
16 JULY 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

E. N. MOORE FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

AMUI, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash the decision of
the Inspector-General of Police (I.G.P.), in the exercise of his appellate
jurisdiction under the provisions of the Police Force (Disciplinary
Proceedings) Regulations, 1974 (L.I. 993), in a certain disciplinary proceeding
against the applicant, Paul Ashalley Oblie. The said decision is dated 26
September 1978, and marked herein as exhibit A.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As shown
by the affidavits, the applicant, a police corporal, was charged and found
guilty of a misconduct contrary to section 17 (k) of the Police Service Act,
1970 (Act 350), in that, on 6th day of April, 1977 in Accra did ride a certain
police force motorcycle No. GP 902 without due care and attention as a result
of which you rode into the off-side fender of a Worsely private car<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>No. GF
5403, and caused damage to both vehicles.” The recommendation of the
disciplinary authority that the applicant be reprimanded and pay ¢960, being
cost of repairs to the force cycle, was duly confirmed and being aggrieved
thereby, the applicant appealed to the Inspector-General of Police. The appeal
was in due course dismissed without the applicant being heard.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
as outlined above do not appear to be in dispute, no affidavit in opposition having
been found necessary. The matter is therefore an issue of law. The grounds upon
which this is rested are:<o:p></o:p>(1) That
the procedure adopted by the respondent in determining the applicant’s appeal
without first giving the applicant a hearing was in breach of the rules of
natural justice.<o:p></o:p>(2) That
the said procedure so adopted by the respondent has occasioned a miscarriage of
justice.<o:p></o:p>Before I
proceed to examine the arguments, I may permit myself to make certain
observations on the propriety of the decision of the Police Central
Disciplinary Board to treat the matter as a departmental misconduct.<o:p></o:p>The
common law principle of equality before the law is now axiomatic in our law.
But this does not relieve some persons as a class from being subject to special
set of laws. An example is a person who joins the army, by his own volition or
on conscription may, besides the general law applicable to citizens generally,
be subject to martial law. In like manner, a person in the police force may,
alike with his class, be subject to departmental code of discipline. Such class
laws apart, the soldier or policeman is, as a citizen, equally subject to the
general laws of the country,<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
aforesaid charge of a misconduct is in fact the traffic offence of driving
without due care and attention contrary to section 18 of the Road Traffic
Ordinance, 1952 (No. 55 of 1952), which provides:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“18. (1)
Any person who drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention
or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road shall be
liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or imprisonment not
exceeding six months or to both such fine and imprisonment.”<o:p></o:p>