DAVID JAWARA BANYE vs THE DIRECTOR OF BNI AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2014]DLHC16431

Date	2014-01-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HRC 47/10
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC16431

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KOFI ESSEL MENSAH

LONGINUS CHINEDU

GRACE EWOAL

[2014]DLHC16431
																																						<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" >DAVID JAWARA BANYE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE DIRECTOR OF BNI AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;(DEFENDANTS)[THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT
NO. HRC 47/10&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:29TH JANUARY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>LONGINUS CHINEDU for Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE KOFI ESSEL MENSAH<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
plaintiff, a dismissed officer of the Bureau of National Investigations
(B.N.I.), commenced this action to challenge his dismissal. He describes his
dismissal as wrongful and prays the court to order his re-instatement. The
endorsement of his Writ of Summons clearly expresses his predicament and
expectations. He expects the court to intervene in the dispute and resolve the
matters in controversy according to law. He has, therefore, sued, claiming the
following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “1. A declaration that the dismissal
of plaintiff by the 1st defendant is wrongful.<o:p></o:p>2. An order directed at defendants to immediately
re-instate plaintiff into the employment of 1st defendant. <o:p></o:p>3. An order directed at defendants to pay
plaintiff all salaries, payments and/or benefits due plaintiff within the
period of plaintiff’s purported dismissal to date of plaintiff’s reinstatement.<o:p></o:p>4. An order of interim injunction restraining the
defendant from ejecting plaintiff from the house plaintiff occupies until the
final determination of the suit.”<o:p></o:p>The
interlocutory matter as claim 4 relates was dealt with when, on 6th
December, 2010, this court, upon an application, restrained the defendants from
ejecting the plaintiff from his official accommodation until the final
determination of the suit. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff was employed by the 1st defendant sometime in February,
2000, as Field Desk Officer IV (FDO IV). He rose to the rank of Field Desk
Officer III (FDO III). He had some disciplinary challenges and had his rank
reduced to Field Desk Officer IV (FDO IV). In addition to the punishment of
reduction in rank, he was sternly warned that he would suffer outright
dismissal, should he foul the law in future. The exact wording of the warning
per a letter dated 12th November, 2007, and signed by the then
Director of BNI, J. Kyeremeh, is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“You are also being given the last opportunity to
purge yourself of such questionable character as any future breaches of the law
would result in your outright dismissal.”<o:p></o:p>Before
suffering the punishment of reduction in rank, the plaintiff had been found
guilty by a disciplinary inquiry for insubordination. Per a letter dated 28th
July, 2005, signed by J. Anane-Agyekum, the then Director of BNI, he was warned
never to repeat such a behaviour. Paragraph 6 of the said letter (Exh. L)
conveyed the sentiments of his employers in the following words:<o:p></o:p>“6. You are therefore warned never to repeat such a behaviour else a second would
attract a deserving sanction.”<o:p></o:p>By
the two adverse findings made against the plaintiff, his subsequent conduct was
to be put on the radar. Indeed, the panel that recommended that he should suffer
reduction in rank concluded their report with an exhortation that:<o:p></o:p>“Subject’s activities henceforth should be under
very strict supervision, monitoring and observation.”<o:p></o:p>How
the plaintiff was perceived could be inferred from these events but certainly
all the decisions taken against him were to keep him in line with institutional
discipline. <o:p></o:p>By
a letter dated 20th May, 2010 (Exh. A) under the hand of Yaw Donkor,
director of BNI, the plaintiff was dismissed from the BNI. The dismissal letter
(Exh. A) explains in a summary manner the reasons for the dismissal in
paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, thereof, thus:<o:p></o:p>“6. Notwithstanding the categorical warning of 12th
November, 2007, you again between 13th and 15th January
2010 involved yourself in an unauthorized operation with a foreign law
enforcement officer resulting in the payment and withdrawal of ransom through
the banks in circumstances which portray the BNI in very poor light because
despite the suspects going in and out of banks to do business with the ransom
money, no arrests were made by you and your cohorts. <o:p></o:p>