Chairman, Atta Akyea: The Inspector General of Police and counsel you are most welcome to this very important engagement.
Counsel to IGP, Lawyer Kwame Gyan: Thank you Mr Chairman, thank you hon members.
IGP, Dr. George Akuffo Dampare: Thank you, honourable chair, thank you honourable members, thank you for this.
Atta Akyea: Well, we decided that some matters have happened in the absence of the Inspector General of Police before this committee; we call them the preliminary issues evolving from the tape which you might want to call the first tape which went viral. And by reason of the referral from the speaker, we need to do what we are doing now to interrogate those matters. We are of the humble view that we’ve not started digging the evidence because we are exercising discretion in the matter vis-à-vis national security concerns. So, as you are no doubt aware the tape had gone and was already in the public domain, we couldn’t do anything about it. And that was why we invited chief BugriNaabu and the rest of them to identify the tape because of reasons authenticity and the rest of them and they said a whole lot of things in the absence of a very important personality in the realm, Inspector General of Police. We believe in hallowing the audi alteram partem rule which is to say you have to hear the other side. Because some of the allegations were made public, we are of the humble view that it is only right that the Inspector General Police will address some of the matters which were said before the committee publicly and then we will decide when were retire to go into the evidence which I believe will be in camera. I am praying to God that in listening to the IGP, he will not veer into national security matters. He understands it better than me so that we will be able to do something very good in camera. So, when I see that the IGP is going to areas where is national security, I will just say that please hold your horses because we will do certain things in camera. So, it is only fair because we have heard a lot of people saying that why is it that you made it open and intend going in camera. Our response is very simple; what was made open was in the kitchens of Ghanaians, it was in places where they were playing draft. We’ve listened to it already and we couldn’t do anything about it. But when we want to find the evidential support for what is in the public domain and in our discretion, it will touch the national security, I’m afraid then we don’t have to go open. We will sit in camera and listen to the evidence when you will be called upon to prove what you said publicly and the lawyers understand. Making an allegation on oath is not equal to evidence. An allegation should be substantiated by evidence. I will do the abduction of the evidence also on oath in camera. This is what you said now prove it. That is the real task and that what the committee will do and then by reason of the evidence that we’ve heard which is not intended for the public consumption, we will be able to do the findings of fact and based on the findings of fact, we will be able to make recommendation for plenary. So,this is the bases of we saying that for the greatest of respect for the Inspector General of Police should say what he wants to say with the cameras on him and he shouldn’t say what he shouldn’t say to the general public. But what is very necessary to aid the committee you can always say it when we meet in camera. So, I want the general public to understand what we’re attempting to do so that at the end of the day people will not be accusing us of the fundamental error that we started openly so why do you want to go in camera. We have nothing to hide and I want everybody to come to terms with to what I’m saying. We have nothing to hide as a committee of parliament. We didn’t originate the trouble. None of us manufactured the tape. We didn’t do that. As a matter of fact, we have been burdened with the investigations by the Speaker. We do not have malice aforethought and we want to stress that. We do not believe that anybody’s disgrace will inure to our benefit. We do not believe that when a man should rise to the high office of the Inspector General of Police, we are the ones going to smear him and vilify him. None of us has that kind of agenda. So, please relax about what we’re doing and we have all covenanted that we will give the devil its due. We will make sure that we’re not going to slant anything so somebody is disadvantaged. It will never happen. I know the media is on frenzy trying to talk about what we’re doing and even trying to dictate to us how we should investigate the matter or interrogate the matter. It’s their right to do what they want to do but we have a remit and we have a duty and the duty if you cared to know, springs from the constitution, that a committee of parliament is an extension of the Parliament itself. I have just been told by some good friends of mine that the limited registration is going on and we’ll be overstretched and I said well, that is what has happened. The Members of Parliament should be in their constituencies to go and monitor the limited registration but when the constitution wants you to work, maybe you have to respect the constitution and find space and go and do your limited registration. So, that is why we are here with constitutional obligation to interrogate the matters no more and hope the general public will come to terms with the job that we are doing. I want honourable Boamah to read out tothe Inspector General of Police and counsel I’m sure you know it already and the witnesses, the mandate of the committee so the general public will come to terms with why we’re seated here. We have a mandate and this is what we’re trying to roll out. So,honourable Boamah if you can be good enough to read out the purpose of this interrogation.
Patrick Boamah: Thank you very much chair and good morning, everybody. Chair, our mandate was captured in the memo addressed to your good self, dated 2nd August 2023,which has its origin from Standing Orders 191 of our house rules and this is the mandate of the committee which is assisted by a technical person in the person of Dr Isaac Lartey Annan. The special committee is to: (i) Ascertains the veracity or otherwise of the leaked tape; (ii) Investigates the conspiracy to remove the current Inspector General of Police; (iii) Investigates any other matter contained in the audio recording; (iv) Recommends sanctions to person found culpable where appropriate; (v) To make recommendations for the reforms where necessary
make such other recommendations and consequential orders as the committee may deem appropriate. The committee was tasked by the Speaker to submit a report on its findings and conclusions for consideration by Parliament within the first week of resumption of the Third Meeting of the Third Session. I accordingly write to inform you that you have been assigned a technical person to assist the committee and I am confident that you will discharge your duties professionally and accord the honourable chairman and the members of the committee the required support to discharge of this onerous responsibility. Thank you very much chairman. This is the mandate of the committee.
Atta Akyea: Thank you. There have been some intervening matters after our last sitting and I want the vice chairman to touch on it briefly because it is healthy that every witness here should understand that in discharging this constitutional obligation there have been immunities and privileges which will relax them. We are not here to if you like make you feel uncomfortable and it is very important you know what you doing because of the consequences of testifying before a committee of parliament on oath. I keep telling people that what you say before this committee on oath has perjury implications. Which is to say that if you perjure yourself before this committee, we will package the dossier on perjury and hand itover to the Attorney General to consider your being prosecuted. So bear in mind that what we’re attempting to do has serious implications for individuals and their families….. this is sensitivity with which we attached to what we are doing and we want the witnesses to bear this in mind. It is not a small matter at all and it’s like you can touch somebody’s life by what you do or what you say here. So, on this note I want to yield to vice to address the immunity and privileges of witnesses who appear before the committee.
Vice Chairman, James Agalga: Chairman thank you for the opportunity and my task is simple and straight forward, to address the witnesses who appear before the committee. But honourable chair, oblige me, before I do that I just want to add to what my colleague Hon Patrick Boamah said with regard to the mandate of the committee and to say that the mandate as stated by Patrick flows from the constitution because I have heard some commentary which is to the effect that the police service has its own internal mechanism for dealing with issues of misconduct and so in the view of those who hold that opinion parliament ought not to have engaged in this exercise in the first place. But I should say that under Article 103 of the constitution, Parliament is clothed with the power to exercise oversight over ministries, departments and agencies of state and therefore it is not out of place at all for Parliament to ply into matters like what is currently before us – the leaked audio and its implications, Parliament has the power to look into such issues and then for the avoidance of doubt, let me read out, chairman, for the public consumption. Article 103(3) of the constitution. It reads as follows: Committees of Parliament shall be charged with such functions including the investigation and inquiring into the activities and administration of ministries and departments as parliament may determine, such investigations and inquiries may extend to proposals for legislations. So, Article 103 of the constitution is very clear on the mandate of Parliament so notwithstanding the fact that you may internal arrangements mechanisms for dealing with issues bothering on the integrity of agencies and departments of state when Parliament deems it fit,we can come under Art 103(3) of the constitution to investigate any matter emanating from the agencies and departments and we shall also under the watch of parliament and that’s why sometimes we for parliamentary oversight. Now my main task. The issue I’m about to raise has been remedied. So, the point needs to be made, that particularly already have been remedied and it has to do with decision of the police service on the 7th of this month September to interdict three officers who appeared before us to assist the committee to as it were, investigate issues surrounding the leaked audio which went viral and Mr Speaker composed this committee and directed that we investigate the matter and report. The officers in question are; COP Alex Mensah, Supt Gyebi and Supt Asare. The committee was displeased when it came to our knowledge that the officers hadbeen interdicted as a result of the work of Parliament. We thought that it was inappropriate for the Police Service to have taken such steps, especially when they knew that this committee had actually commenced its investigations and the witnesses have….. decided to remedy the situation reversing the decision to interdict the officers. Now it is the considered view of this committee that all witnesses who appear before us are protected. They have certain immunities which immunities cannot be toiled with. So, you appear before us and testify, you have the protection of the state. Under no circumstance should anybody who appear before Parliament be gagged or intimidated. That is the message we want to send out there so that those who have been invited as witnesses should feel free to speak with us without fears that somebody might interdict you because you have appeared before parliament to assist parliament unravel certain truths. So, all the witnesses without exception who appear before us, you have the protection of Parliament. We’re going to raise very serious issues with regards to the approach. But like I said before, the Police Service itself in its wisdom realising that the actions were not proper, took steps but we thought that as a committee, we cannot just keep quiet and so today we cease the opportunity and drum home the message that witnesses will enjoy the protection of the committee at all times once they’re here before us. When our work is over, we present our recommendations, yes, the Police Service we know you have your service regulations and so on, if you think that the time to invoke those regulations is right you can do that, but after we finished with our work because we don’t want anybody to feel that look well, he or she has been gagged because the person volunteered to assist Parliament with its investigations. So, chairman, on that note I will yield to you and I wish the IGP who is appearing before us for the first time with his engagement with the committee. Thank you.
Chairman calls for administering of oath to the IGP and this was done.
Atta Akyea: Very good. Now Inspector General of Police, have you listened to the first tape?
Lawyer Kwame Gyan: Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself to the committee. My name is Kwame Gyan, I’m lead counsel for the Inspector General of Police and assisted by Supt Sylvester Asare. Honourable members, we have a couple of preliminary issues to raise before the proceedings would continue if it has…..
Atta Akyea: Okay so you mentioned another lawyer assisting you. Who is person? (He rises) Oh okay
Assistant counsel: Honourable chair, I am Supt Sylvester Asare
Kwame Gyan: Honourable chair I feel discomforted when I sit. I’m used to standing but will find a way to accommodate myself. Honourable chairman we wrote this august committee and we sought audience with the committee to have worked out the modalities for this session. But unfortunately, we couldn’t get that opportunity. And in the absence of that there are some preliminary matters that we want to bring to the attention of the committee. And we think that these are very pertinent and we think that we have a duty to our client and this republic to bring these matters to the attention of the committee. In fact, when we wrote to this august committee, the committee wrote back to us and said that we should come here at 10am prompt and we were going to be given opportunity to discuss the modalities. So, in fact, we were here 9:30 and we never got the opportunity to discuss the modalities. Indeed, if we had gotten that opportunity maybe some of the issues we are raising would have been raised during that session. So, may we plead your indulgence to humbly raise the issues. Mr Chairman and honourable members, our first issue has to do with the presence in this room, at this time of the witnesses who previously were invited by this august committee and who have gone through the process of giving their testimonies. Mr chairman we were given written notes on Friday to appear before this committee and the notice said that we should note that all other witnesses who have attended before the committee would be present and the meeting would be held in camera. Our first objection has to do with the presence of the other witnesses. Mr Chairman, on Thursday 17thAugust this committee met and its proceedings were supplied to us by the committee itself and during that meeting the honourable chairman made a note that and I quote; “So, BugriNaabu would open the floodgate. I think the IGP is mentioned is he not? So, he could be a potential witness note that. We would invite the police commissioner too.” So, our point is way back in August 17th, this committee knew that they are going to invite the IGP. The other witnesses, four of them, three police officers and a civilian came here and gave out testimonies; in some cases, very wild allegations were made, unsubstantiated and they just walked free. They walked home. The IGP was not invited to be present and today the IGP is being invited and the witnesses who are his accusers have been given notice to come in and sit here. Mr chairman, we think that in fairness, equity, good conscience, candour and all the principles set out in Article 297 of the constitution about the exercise of discretion, what we are saying is that it is unfair, unjust, inequitable for witnesses who spoke in our absence to come and sit in when we have to speak. We believe in consistency of treatment. The same way that we sat outside, they should also sit outside and the committee to continue to do their work but we very strongly object to the presence of the three police officers and the civilian if he is here. We very strongly object, we think it’s unfair, unjust, inequitable and unconstitutional. Mr chairman, our second objection has to do with still the process maybe a hybrid process and substance kind of objection. Mr chairman, our letter of invitation to the IGP supplied us with some information. The very first page, what we got was evidence before the committee in the form of audio recordings on a pen drive. 2. The terms of reference of the committee and its composition. 3. Statement made by the honourable of member for Ellembelle. 4. Transcribed record of proceedings of the committee meetings. Yet, in the preliminary remarks of the honourable chairman, we are being hinted that there is some evidence somewhere and that would be the subject of some interrogations. Mr chairman and committee members, our humble view is that so far as we are concerned the deliberations is going to be limited and only limited to this information which is the evidence that has been supplied us to study and come and respond to. Beyond this, if the committee has any evidence, we would wish that the committee should furnish us with that evidence and appropriately we will take time out and request for an adjournment to go and study the evidence and appear before the committee properly. But we are surprised by the proposition that the persons who gave evidence before this honourable committee, gave unsubstantiated evidence and there’s another opportunity for the substantiation. I have not seen this sequencing in taking evidence in my 34 years practice as a lawyer. You make the statement, you lay the foundation, you bring the evidence and you are interrogated on the evidence. But you don’t do your evidence oral, you go home after one week and you are called back to come and substantiate. Mr chairman and honourable members, we want to have clarity on this sequencing in terms of delivery because like I’m saying, it comes as news to me. And finally, yes, we have been told and it is trite learning that Parliament governs its own rules of procedure. But Parliament is also one of the institutions of state so the general law also binds Parliament.
Atta Akyea: We are an Arm of Government. We are not institution of state.
Kwame Gyan: Yes, and the general law includes your own standing orders. Mr chairman I will refer you to your own Standing Orders 192 and 197 and which says committees like this August committee stays within its mandate. The committee has to stay within its mandate and the mandate of this committee is clear and unambiguous and we have just heard a very erudite reading of the mandate by Hon Patrick Boamah and I have to say at this point that Honourable Patrick Boamah and Honourable Agalga were my students in Legon and I am privileged that they have risen to higher positions in public and they are serving their nation well.
Atta Akyea: What about the chairman of the committee?
Kwame Gyan: I won’t add that one. The chairman is big and the chairman, he and I predate from afar so we are fine. So, this mandate was giving to us by the committee and what did it say? To ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the leaked tape. To investigate the conspiracy to remove the current IGP and investigate any other matter contained in the recording. Because some members of this committee are lawyers, they appreciate the rule ejusdem generis. And it is particularly because of the three; investigate any other matter contained in the audio recording. It means that any other matter should be restricted to a matter involving the leaked tape, the veracity and the conspiracy to remove the IGP. Beyond this, the committee’s mandate ends and your own standing orders say how you can extend your mandate, you have to go back to the authority that gave you the mandate for an extension of the mandate. So, Mr Chairman we are very law abiding and we want this process to go on smoothly but want the record to reflect that we raised this objection and will humbly wait for commentary on the part of the committee on this objection. I rest
Atta Akyea: Counsel, is it your submission that we have exceeded our mandate?
Kwame Gyan: Mr chairman, if this committee imports so far as we are concerned any evidence other than what we had on this sheet we will take that as excess of mandate. In the event that this committee considers any other matter otherwise than the authenticity, the veracity of the tape and any potential conspiracy in the tape that one is excess of mandate.
Atta Akyea: But it should be the case that we have exceeded our mandate or we are about to exceed our mandate that should ground your objection or submission is that not so? We’vebarely started and I thought you could tell us that we’ve crossed the line and you are doing something untoward or you are just advising us not to exceed our mandate?
Kwame Gyan: Mr Chairman, you already stated categorically that you have some evidence which appeared to be other than what you have given us.
Atta Akyea: Let me explain why it is so. The speaker said we should authenticate the audio that is to say this audio general. Does it reflect the kind of engagement that took place in the Osu Office of Chief Bugri Naabu. So, in doing the authentication it has come out that and it is also part of the evidence that we heard it is not the complete audio which is to say it’s been doctored. Therefore, in trying to authenticate the audio, there is additional evidence that it is not complete. In fact, some of themsaid that it’s been edited and that there were unedited aspects of this therefore if from the witnesses the audio is not complete where is the complete audio? Is it not in the journey of authentication for them to tell us that this not genuine but there’s another one and that other one, are we barred by the terms of our reference to ignore it when it has evolved from the evidence? That is the problem. I don’t see why it should be a challenge at all and bear in mind that whatever it is that comes out of this investigation which is necessary and relevant, we have the right to look at it so that we will not be deceived. If you remember, I don’t want to say so many things, but when chief Bugri Naabu said he did the taping and said yes, I thought the audio had been authenticated and the man said I did the taping only for other witnesses to come and say that no it is not a complete tape. It doesn’t reflect what transpired amongst the three of them. Are you saying by the force of logic that the committee should ignore the evolving evidence? Then what kind of investigations will we be doing? So, on the issue of an additional tape that is not in our mandate I beg to say that you are overruled because there is a connectedness that we can’t ignore because at the end of the day, we are supposed to do a comprehensive exercise for the benefit of the House but we were good enough to have given you the second tape on the same pen drive that you have which gives you the opportunity to look at it. So, this committee has not shortchanged your client. This committee has been generous enough to give every relevant information for purposes of the IGP stating his case. So, this is where we are on the second matter because I don’t believe at all that we have exceeded our mandate. If you have not studied the second tape and you need space to do that, we will give you the space to do it. But it would be a very truncated way of adoption of evidence that evidence coming before the committee a result of the leaked tape should be ignored by the committee. I don’t think that is the way to go. And then also…..
Kwame Gyan: Mr. Chairman, I will like to comment on your last comment. Mr chairman, very respectfully, we have no issue with the extended tape. That’s not our issue. We have it and it was furnished us by the committee, we don’t have a problem. Our problem is the possibility that was triggered by Mr chairman’s comment about some additional evidence which is going to be used in substantiation, that is where my problem is. Because I expect that when the witness testified, if they had something to substantiate, that is when they should have substantiated not subsequent one week later before they are called back to substantiate. That’s where I have a problem.
Atta Akyea: I respect what you saying. You see, but what is happening is this and counsel listen to me carefully and the I know that what we are doing is trying to be in the realm of adjudication like a court of competent jurisdiction. And I want to say it again; some matters are in the public domain already which is the first tape, the one that honourable Armah Kofi Buahrested his submissions on and prompted the referral. That tape is what moved us to call chief Bugri Naabu for authentication and also comments on the tape and he did what he was supposed to do. It turned out that there was another tape and if you care to know I will tell you, I have nothing to hide and that other tape was furnished this committee by the lawyers chief Bugri Naabu. It would be a miscarriage of justice and an outrageous way of adoption of evidence to discard the second tape. I don’t see how we as a committee can say that no we won’t look at it. When the first tape, if you like, the original one is being challenged by the individuals who are on the first tape. They said no there is more to the tape than we can and guess what, the one who said he taped furnishes the committee with the if you like the full tape. Counsel, will it sit with equity, good conscience and law for this committee to say well, there is additional information associated and integral to the first tape and we want to ignore it? But guess what, I want you to bear in mind that you have world of opportunity to look at the second tape and then how it affects your client you will deal with it. And probably you will deal it when you sit in camera when you can look at some of the details properly but this stage, I do not see how anybody can say that this committee should not deal with the second tape because we are on the journey of authenticity which is part of our mandate. So, in trying to authenticate the tape we have found that oh the first one is not all that the tape is supposed to roll out but there is additional conversation on the second tape. So, I don’t want to go more than this. Now let me deal with the second issue of the necessity to let them sit in the witnesses. There was no way we were going to call the IGP about some of the matters because we didn’t want to say that IGP has done something untoward. If you listen to the first tape, there is nothing the IGP did regarding the first tape and therefore to say that we should have brought the IGP to sit….. individuals on the first tape… to respect the audialteram partem rule should the invite IGP who the others are accusing to come and clear himself so that he will also have some space as we are about to offer him to deal with the preliminary issues, the beginning matters that is all we are trying to do. They’ve said a lot of things and they should sit in. You see, they are not going to say one word when the IGP is speaking. Their lawyers are not going to ask any questions. They have to listen to the voice of their boss and then probably when we retire in camera, then they will know. Now let’s get evidence out properly...
Click on the link to continue
