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

Leaked IGP Audio: Dampare testifies Pt. 2

 

This is a continuation from the grilling f Commissioner of Police, George Alex Mensah, during which he admitted to having served as the Aide-de-Camp of the late Vice President Kow Nkensen Arkaah.

‘Leaked IGP Tape’ -How Atta Akyea’s committee grilled COP Mensah

 

Eric Opoku: Now we are still on page five of the verbatim reporting. In the first statement, he will not look at this Assin North, he has picked every police officer to Assin North now, including all the big men. They’ve all gone to Assin North, what are they going to do? Policemen will be there. How do we? We shouldn’t make that mistake at all. This one by our arrangement is like you have confirmed that this is your statement. Is that correct?

COP Mensah: Yes, I said it.

Eric Opoku: Okay. And then I am taking you to page six. With military men he is fighting with the army –the armed forces. Page six the second one. Speaker two. The second one. With military men he is fighting with the army –the armed forces. This one you have confirmed this as your statement. Is that correct?

COP Mensah: Yes, I made that statement and I still stand by it.

Eric Opoku: That the IGP is fighting with the army. Is that the statement?

COP Mensah and his lawyer confers

Eric Opoku: Yes, we want to understand it. Then the first one; speaker two so hmmmmm Alhaji, whatever we need to do to get somebody else to supervise these elections, we need to do because as we speak this IGP he is not good. He is not fine with the military officers. This one too you confirm as a statement coming from you?

COP Mensah: Yes Mr. Chairman, I said it. And as t said yesterday, I will say it everywhere I go.

Eric Opoku: So, when you said hmmm Alhaji, whatever we need to do. The “we” was representing which group of people? We including yourself which group of people were you referring to?

COP Mensah: I was referring to myself and Alhaji. 

Eric Opoku: The two of you. And then speaker two, the third statement. I do not know. You find out if any army officer is your friend, call him and ask him “How do you see this IGP?” he will tell you he has been arresting military cars, commanders’ cars. Find out yourself. Is this also your statement? This is also from the audio

COP Mensah: Yes, I said it and I still stand by it.

Eric Opoku: Then the last one: Alhaji, we tell people. You, because I didn’t know you, so I cannot just get up and come to you and then tell you this but those that we know we tell them perfectly. But when you tell them they think ooh Mensah, maybe it is because you wanted to be IGP and they didn’t give it to you. That is why. This is also your statement. Is that correct?

COP Mensah: Yes Mr. Chairman, I said it.

Eric Opoku: Good and then page seven. Page seven is just a short one: The father comes from Krobo and the mother is from Oti region. You know if you come from the last speaker two, it is the third one. The third one from the last. The father comes from Krobo and the mother is from Oti region. Is it your statement?

COP Mensah: Yes

Eric Opoku: Who were you talking about?

COP Mensah: We were talking about the Inspector General of Police.

Eric Opoku: Then page nine counting from the bottom, the third one: Because his party was in power because his party was in power. Who were you referring to and what specific party were you talking about? Because his party was in power. This one you confirmed that is it your statement so straight away you answer the question then we proceed.

COP Mensah: Yes Mr. Chairman that is my statement. I said it.

Eric Opoku: Because his party was in power.

COP Mensah: Yes

Eric Opoku: So, who was the person being spoken about?

COP Mensah: Mr. Dampare

Eric Opoku: Dampare and what party was it?

COP Mensah: NDC 

Eric Opoku: So, you think that or you claim that the current IGP is an NDC member. Is that correct? Because you said because his party was in power. Is that correct?

COP Mensah: I am not saying he was a member of NDC.

Eric Opoku: No, you said his party.

COP Mensah: He can be a sympathizer. You do not need to be a member.

Eric Opoku: What is the difference between a sympathizer and a member?

COP Mensah: Members have membership cards.

Eric Opoku: Okay and sympathizers?

COP Mensah:  Sympathizers vote for those parties. They support them.

Eric Opoku: They just vote okay. So, sympathizers can also say that this is my party. Is that correct? So, you can say NPP is your party because you are a sympathizer. Is that not, correct?

COP Mensah: I have been with the UP tradition for life and I will still be there.

Eric Opoku: Yesterday you said that you are a sympathizer of the NPP.

COP Mensah: Of course, Yes! And I will continue to be there. I won’t lie.

Eric Opoku: And so, if a sympathizer can describe a political party as my party, then in the same vein you can describe the NPP as your party. Is that not correct?

COP Mensah: Yes.

Eric Opoku: So NPP is your party?

COP Mensah: Yes, but I am not a card bearing and it’s my party.

Eric Opoku: Let’s proceed. Okay page ten you have written something there I cannot read if you can read for us. The top there.

COP Mensah: What I wrote there is national

Eric Opoku: Was it for your own use? Okay. So, you wanted to say that you did not say Russian but you said national. Is that correct?  But in the audio, it is reported as Russian and you have written there national. Are you indicating to the committee that it wasn’t Russian but national?

COP Mensah: That was some of the mistakes those who transcribed made.

Eric Opoku: Okay

COP Mensah: Instead of national they wrote Russian.

Eric Opoku: So, you said national it wasn’t Russian.

COP Mensah: Yes

Eric Opoku: Okay and then page 11 too you have written something there if you can read for us because I can’t see it.

COP Mensah: Mr. Chair that was my personal note. It wasn’t meant for the committee.

Eric Opoku: Okay.

 

James Agalga: Let’s stay there. So, you admit that when your voice is captured as saying he when he brings his CV, there are certain things that he doesn’t add to it. He has removed all those things from his CV. In his CV, he never indicated that he was the aide-de-camp to President Professor Mills. No, he didn’t but do you stand by that statement as having been authored by you?

COP Mensah: Yes Mr. Chairman, I stand by them.

James Agalga: When you say when he brings his CV, right? It presupposes that anytime he brings up his CV, you see it. Is that the understanding?

Atta Akyea: It doesn’t presuppose. It doesn’t presuppose please.

James Agalga: Chairman please, please, please.

Atta Akyea: But you are using the word presupposes that means you want to conjecture.

James Agalga: Well, well. Let me ask my question.

Atta Akyea: So, you should ask him.

James Agalga: Chairman, please, please, please.

Atta Akyea: No, no, please, counsel (referring to James Agalga) counsel.

James Agalga: Chairman, chairman

Atta Akyea: I crave your indulgence, you see. Do not put words in the mouth of the witness. That is the basic rule. I mean, if you say that you know but to presuppose makes, with respect an argument or conjecture and that will not be a way to grill him on the matter because he could answer wrongly based on your conjecture.

James Agalga: I proceed.

Atta Akyea: Yes

James Agalga: Now Commissioner, when you state categorically that he has removed all those things from his CV, have you seen his CV?

COP Mensah: Yes Mr. Chairman.

James Agalga: When did you see his CV?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chair, I have been at the police headquarters for so many years. Officers have our CVs on our files. The last time I saw his CV was when he was appointed IGP and his CV came in all the papers and it is from there that I made this comment.

James Agalga: That the fact of the IGP having once served as Aide-de-camp to Prof. Mills was not captured in the CV. You made this note.

COP Mensah: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Audio off – Committee confers on who should speak

Atta Akyea: Are you done with it or he should continue?

James Agalga: I think he should continue but he should also wrap up so that I will take my substantive you know

Atta Akyea: Yes. This is the hundredth time I have told you that you will have your day. Let them finish then and all that. You have the residual powers and you begin to go as far as you want to go because I thought you were just doing a follow up. It seems to me that it is no longer a follow up, I mean

Eric Opoku: Yes, COP I am taking you back to page nine. There is a small statement there and I want clarification. Page nine; one, two, three, four, from bottom; speaker two. Alhaji said this now he became a commissioner before you and this was your response.  Yeah, before me because his party was in power. You have confirmed that this is your statement. Is that correct?

COP Mensah: Yes.

Eric Opoku: And then yesterday, Honourable Toobu asked you a question and then you provided an answer. Let me read the question and the answer to you for you to understand me: Thank you Mr. Chairman. In the policy guideline before the Ghana Police Service Regulation 2012 which you also enjoyed from 1992 till we had a new policy guideline, it was provided in that, if one is a charted accountant, one’s minimum rank should be a Superintendent of Police. I presumed that is why Dr. Dampare became your senior. Is that right? And then you answered that is true

COP Mensah: Yes, I did.

Eric Opoku: So why are you saying that he became a commissioner before you because his party was in power knowing very well that the guidelines say something different?

COP Mensah: This a conversation and becoming a Superintendent and Commissioner are totally different. The first one was becoming a Superintendent this one is becoming Commissioner. They are totally different.

Eric Opoku: Which one was the Superintendent? Which one? The one you said it is true, eh?

COP Mensah: The one you read is about the Superintendent.

Eric Opoku: I have read two things, which one are you referring to?

COP Mensah: You said now he became a commissioner, and what you read; the question Mr. Toobu asked was about the Superintendent.

Eric Opoku: Okay

COP Mensah: And your question now is about commissioner and I am saying these are two different ranks.

Eric Opoku: And you think that in the police service people are promoted based on their party affiliations is that not the case? Because you said because his party was in power. Is that what you are insinuating?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman I am sorry I will not want to answer this question.

Peter Toobu: Commissioner, I just want to help my colleague: What he is saying is that Dr. George Akuffo Dampare became a superintendent as a result of academic qualification being a charted accountant and by virtue of that he became your senior. He became a superintendent before you. Consequently, he became a commissioner before you. And why you going to say that he became a commissioner before you because his party was promoting him so he is asking you the question: Is it by virtue of the policy of the Ghana police service he became a commissioner before you or is because his party was promoting him? That is the question he wants you to answer. Thank you

Patrick Boamah: Yesterday, what my colleague Peter Toobu asked, and your answer suggested that once you complete a course like CA, a professional course, you are promoted to a superintendent.

We want to have an understanding of the distinction. The consideration that are made from superintendent upwards so that we are able to understand the promotional requirement from superintendent downwards from superintendent upwards. Are there some positions that has to go through the Police Council? Or to the President? Or the IGP himself can promote on his own promote some officers? We need to understand because your answer was in the affirmative that he became a superintendent because of academic qualification. That is why he overtook you. That was Peter’s question.

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, police promotions have so many things going on in it. We have academic promotions; we have normal promotions and we have special recommendations. For now, as we speak, those academic promotions are no more and I think we have all heard that some 88 officers have taken the IGP to court about this. We have the normal promotions and we have the special recommendations. These are three.

Atta Akyea: Honourable (referring to Eric Opoku) you should be winding up. You have taken center stage for long time. We need to move on.

Eric Opoku: So, my question was very specific: When you say somebody became a commissioner before you because his party was in power, and I asked you were promoted during president Kufour’s time. And eight years under the NDC, you were never promoted. President Nana Addo Dankwa assumed office and promoted you. So, is it because your party is in power that you are being promoted or you are promoted?

COP Mensah: I was promoted because I was due for promotion for more than nine years. 

Atta Akyea: In other words, he is saying that he was long overdue. That is what he is trying to say.

Eric Opoku: But IGP Dampare was not due for promotion at the time he was promoted. Is that the case?

Atta Akyea: Please answer

COP Mensah:  Mr. Chairman, I haven’t said so.

Eric Opoku: Oh! you said he was promoted above you because his party was in power. So, the basis for the promotion is the party that was in power. That is what you are alluding to, and we know you are very intelligent officer. Everybody knows you. Very intelligent, very experienced. So, when a statement of this nature is put out, then certainly we have to ask questions because the service is a service of integrity and we presumed that promotions are done based on the competence and then on merits. And so, when you say just because the party was in power, it is something some of us do not understand that is why I am seeking further clarifications from you.

Atta Akyea: Commissioner clarify

COP Mensah: I am not saying that he was not due for promotion or he was not competent to be promoted. I said he was promoted because his party was in power because some of us who were seen as not members of the party were not promoted for almost nine years.

James Agalga: Commissioner, are promotions based on party affiliation within the police service?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, it is not supposed to be, and when some people are there, it is not so. As we speak, it is not so. At a point in time, it was so. That is why some of us stayed there nine good years.

James Agalga: Some time ago what period was that when promotions were based on political party affiliation in the police service?

COP Mensah: That was the period from 2008 to 2016.

James Agalga: 2008-2016

COP Mensah: Yes

James Agalga: Yesterday you recall I gave you an example and asked you to give me a response. I asked whether you knew General O.B Akwa, who was Army Commander or Chief of Army Staff in 2016 and what was your response to that question yesterday?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman I am sorry General O.B Acquah is not and was not a policeman.

James Agalga: Yes. The Armed Forces is a sister security institution. So, I asked

Atta Akyea: Oh vice, vice, vice

James Agalga: Chairman this is a legitimate question. I asked this man this same question. His response was wrong and it was deliberate. So, this is a legitimate question. You see, he sat here and confirmed that between 2008 and 2016, promotions were based on party affiliation so let us quiz him on this.

Audio off – Committee confers

James Agalga: And so, in order to test his credibility, you say I cannot talk about analogous issues?

Atta Akyea: Commissioner, there are some analogous matters that you should address so that we move on so vice continue.

James Agalga: O.B. Akwa was Chief of Army Staff from 20, no, by 2016 he was Chief of Army Staff do you agree of this country? You are a senior police officer you should know that.

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman I don’t know.

James Agalga: Alright. Now, I am suggesting to you that he was Chief of Amry Staff, or what they call Army Commander under President Mahama, and then became Chief of Defence Staff under President Akufo-Addo So, your attempt to make the statement that appointments are based on party affiliations is not correct.

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, what happens in the police is different from what happens in the military. And chief of army staff is not a promotion. It is a position, and that is different from promotion. Get it right. That is a position and not a promotion so you can’t compare what I am saying to what you are saying. They are totally different matters. And the police and the military are different institution.

James Agalga: We are talking about promotions and appointments.

COP Mensah: In the police service not everywhere, Mr. Chairman.

Atta Akyea: Let’s find out whether vice is satisfied. Lest I will be accused of I mean errm

James Agalga: Oh no, chairman

Atta Akyea: Please, if you got a referee like me everywhere the match will be good.

James Agalga: Chairman you know my sense of purpose

Atta Akyea: I am moderating things. You don’t know what I am going through. I am trying to moderate you so that if you are not careful it could be something else. I have prompted him severally but he defies me.I might one of these days

James Agalga: If I sit here you allow a witness to give such a conclusive statement that between 2008, 2016 promotions were based on politics

Atta Akyea: That is his view

James Agalga: You see why I wanted that opened up?

Atta Akyea: Please, please, a man can state his view

James Agalga: You think such a view hasn’t got security ramifications?

Atta Akyea: Yeah, we will evaluate it that his view was wrong when we are writing our paper. He is not supposed to tell us what is a reality. If his reality is wrong, we leave him to his errors but we will sit here and say that it is wrong. So, what are you going to say. We are not going to swallow hook line and sinker all that he says here. Because he said it and we as a committee will just produce. It is not like that

James Agalga: The public is listening. This is live

Atta Akyea: As for the public

James Agalga: No, we represent the public. Some information when it is spewed out and you don’t correct it, it poisons the public atmosphere. And so, when a witness makes a statement like that he must be subjected to a proper test. Yes.

Atta Akyea: The public is discerning. They are listening. Even the public some of them are knowledgeable than us. I am not going to ponder to any public but what I am telling you is that if a man gives an opinion that is his opinion. E might be palpably wrong. He might be wearing a different lens from mine. And he is I the service. He thinks that promotions could be political. When we are interrogating the matter, we will sit down and see whether what he is saying is the truth or not. But the more you say that an answer is not palatable to you he will repeat the something.

James Agalga: No

Atta Akyea: That is what he is doing. You are not seeing that

James Agalga: When I related to a factual situation, he situation, he sat here and told the whole country that I was wrong. But the analogy I presented was factual, and that defeats the position he has taken

Atta Akyea: He disagrees with you. That’s why he was saying that.

James Agalga: Chairman, we can’t tolerate those types of prevarifications. When it suites him he says one thing. When it doesn’t suite him, no, no, we must correct him. When OB Akwa was Chief of Defence Staff everybody knew, when Chief of Army Staff everybody knew

Atta Akyea: No, I didn’t know

James Agalga: And we know under which political dispensation he served

Atta Akyea: I didn’t know. I am hearing it for the first time

Patrick Boamah: Chairman, with the greatest of respect I think we are taking the wind out of the sails of Hon Eric Opoku. For the record, OB Akwa became Chief of Army Staff when Opoku Adusei was sacked. So, let’s also have it record.

James Agalga: Was he sacked?

Patrick Boamah: Removed (laughter in the auditorium)

James Agalga: He was removed

Patrick Boamah: Removed, sacked

James Agalga: Was he removed or he was on retirement

Patrick Boamah: He didn’t go on retirement. Check.

Atta Akyea: Vice we will come back to you. (points to Eric Opoku) Please conclude so that we will be able to come to the end of the matter.

Eric Opoku: Now, between 2017 and 2019 were you promoted?

COP Mensah: Yes. I was

Eric Opoku: From what level to where? I mean ranks

COP Mensah: I was promoted from Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner to Commissioner.

Eric Opoku: Is it very normal in the service that within two years somebody is given these kinds of promotions?

COP Mensah: Yes. It is very normal
Eric Opoku: And it is not because your party was in power?

COP Mensah: Especially when the person has spent nine years in one rank when his juniors have become commissioners and he was still an assistant commissioner

Eric Opoku: Okay. 17, counting from top 1, 2,3, speaker two; for this Assin North election, it is very critical. Whatever we need to do to win we have to do it and win. This is a statement that you have confirmed as your statement. Is that correct?

COP Mensah: Yes

Eric Opoku: So, when you said we need to win. Whatever we need to do to win we have to do. Were you referring to the NPP as a party?

COP Mensah: Yes

Eric Opoku: So, as an officer you wanted your party to do everything possible to win. Is that the case?

COP Mensah: I have said it already. And that was a private conversation between me and a senior party member.

Eric Opoku: Okay. And then last but one. Speaker two on the same page; We should have selected some of our own people to go there so that we work with the party. They go over there then they know how to do things. Is that correct?

COP Mensah: That is correct.

Eric Opoku: So, you wanted your party, the NPP, to select police officers who are perceived to be your members to go and make you win the Assin North elections.

COP Mensah: No, I wanted them to select people they trust who will go there and will not go and cause any confusion and will make that whoever wins, wins but not to go and destroy your strongholds.

Eric Opoku: So, when you say some of our people. With some I know you were referring to some policemen. And so, we are talking about some of our own people. And so in the police service do we have policemen belonging to the NPP, and another one belonging to the NDC? Let us understand the issues clearly.

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman. I will not be a hypocrite. We have it. And we have some of our people who resigned within two week they went and contested for MPs when they were supposed to be card bearing members for five years. But they resigned and within two weeks they were contesting. I am not a hypocrite. I will speak the truth.

Eric Opoku: So, as we speak, our police service is divided along political lines. That is the impression I am getting. And I believe a lot of people watching are getting the same impression. Is that the case that we have NPP group in the service and then we have NDC group?

Atta Akyea: Please with the greatest of respect let us have in camera with this. As you speak now the Ghana Police Service is divided along party lines. That is very explosive to thing. So please in good time, we can have him in camera. We will glean meaning and understanding from him quietly. We might call whoever matters and then, it becomes part of our recommendations. Hmm…you want to correct something?

Patrick Boamah: Chairman, I was having a discussion with Hon. Agalga on General Opoku Adusei, he was prematurely retired. Yes. He was supposed to be 65 but he left before the time and Akwa was made to act in his stead and he has confirmed that.

James Agalga: No. I did not confirm anything. You made that statement.

Patrick Boamah: He was released before his time.

James Agalga: He was dismissed and I said no, using the word dismissal is strong.

Patrick Boamah: Okay

James Agalga: Because dismissal means that you go home without any benefits or whatsoever.

Patrick Boamah: I mean he was releases before his time.

Atta Akyea: That is fine.

Patrick Boamah: True.

James Agalga: Yes, before his time, I can’t speak to that but all I can say is that he was not dismissed.

Atta Akyea: That is fine. So, vice, now you have the floor.

James Agalga: Thank you sir. Now COP, you stated, one of your charges against the IGP is that he has been arresting party people. You said this?

COP Mensah: Yes, I said it.

James Agalga: Now which party people are those?

COP Mensah: I was speaking to Bugri Naabu, so I was referring to his party people.

James Agalga: Which party?

COP Mensah: NPP.

James Agalga: Can you confirm to this Committee, which party people have been arrested?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chair, I never knew I was going to be asked this question but I can remember this one that the 3rd Vice Chairman of New Patriotic Party was arrested.

James Agalga: Why was he arrested and what is his name?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know his name, all I knew was the 3rd Vice Chairman of the NPP has been arrested. He was arrested for a traffic offence.

James Agalga: It is an arrestable offence?

COP Mensah: Yes, it is.

James Agalga: So, he was arrested because he jumped red light or committed a traffic offence and not because of his party affiliation, is that correct?

COP Mensah: I actually don’t know the offence he committed. If I tell you here that I knew the offence he committed, I will not be speaking the truth.

James Agalga: Commissioner, I thought you just said he was arrested for a traffic offence?

COP Mensah: Yes, he was arrested for a traffic offence. There are several traffic offences so I don’t know the specfic traffic offence he committed but the information we had was that he was arrested for a traffic offence but the specific one, I don’t know and I can’t sit here and lie.

James Agalga: So, you will agree with me that he was arrested not because of his party affiliation but because he has committed a traffic offence?

COP Mensah: Mr. chair, I don’t think I said he was arrested because of his party affiliation. I have not said.

 

James Agalga: Commissioner, you see let’s be forthright. This is a statement that is captured in the audio and it is attributed to you. You complained to Bugri Naabu that the IGP was arresting party people. Now, I’m asking you and you indicated in an answer to my question that a 2nd Vice Chairman was arrested and I’m asking you whether he was arrested because he was a 2nd Vice Chairman or he was arrested as a normal citizen who committed a traffic offence. That is the question.

COP Mensah: And I have answered the question. I have answered it. I said he was arrested for traffic offence. That is what I said.

James Agalga: Do you know or have you heard of the name Sosu or Hon. Sosu, the MP for Madina. Have you heard the name before?

COP Mensah: Yes. I know of Hon. Sosu. I have heard the name before.

James Agalga: Are you aware that Hon. Sosu was arrested, charged, prosecuted for a traffic offence. It was in the news. I served as his counsel. Did you hear that?

COP Mensah: Hon. Sosu was not arrested. Hon. Sosu was declared wanted because the police couldn’t arrest him. We wrote to Parliament for him to report but never reported. He was not arrested.

James Agalga: That was in relation to a demonstration. My second question has to do with a commission of a traffic offence and I’m asking you whether you’re aware that Hon. Sosu, the NDC Member of Parliament for Madina was arrested, charged, and prosecuted for a traffic offence. It was in the news

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, I’m not aware.

James Agalga: So that is for the records and I served as his counsel. He was arrested, charges, prosecuted whilst Dr. Dampare was at post as the Inspector General of Police. These are facts and I’m sharing with you.

Atta Akyea: He does not need it. Why saying you’re sharing with him. Did he tell you he needs it. What is the meaning of this. Let me also put something on record. I was in a vehicle myself. Mine own vehicle reading all of a sudden, the police said my driver should park and he parked. They took me to the Airport police station and they said I was not the one driving so they won’t charge me. They charged the driver and took him to court and we paid the fine so it was all over. Atta AKyea of Kyebi, I was in the vehicle.

James Agalga: So, you see, Commissioner, nobody is above the law including you as a commissioner. It is expected that when you commit a traffic offence even as a commissioner you should be arrested. Is that not the case?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, that is the case.

James Agalga: Now Commissioner, you are very conversant with the Police Service regulations. As a commissioner you should be. C.I.76. correct?

COP Mensah: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

James Agalga: Now, you are aware that as a serving officer, a police office, you are prohibited from allowing yourself to be embroidered in any form of political controversy. You know that. Those are the prohibitions contained in the C.I.76. You are lawyer, senior officer and you nearly became an IGP so you should know this?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, I want your Vice to read that section that he is talking about to me.

James Agalga: Disciplinary Offences under 82. Major offences: It is a major offence for an officer to

1. Assault a fellow police officer
2. Use without lawful authority any property of the Service for a purpose not in connection with official duties
3. Engage in an activity outside official duties, which is likely to:
4. Involve the officer in political controversies

My emphasis is involve the officer in political controversies.  Then if I take you back to the parent Act; the Police Act 1970, section 17(d). In fact, what is contained in the C.I. 82 (1) (c, i) is captured. Is captured in the same language in 17 (d): It shall be misconduct for a police officer to engaged in any activity outside his official duties, which is likely to involve him in political controversy or lead to him taking improper advantage with his position in the police service.

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, I am.

James Agalga: So, Commissioner, you know that when you engage in conversations with Bugri Naabu about election security and how the IGP’s continuous presence or if you like occupation of that office will not inure to the benefit of your party in the upcoming elections, you clearly, engaged in acts not acceptable under your own regulations and laws?

COP Mensah: Political controversy is subject to interpretation. That is your interpretation. Tha is not mine.

James Agalga: Now officer, you know IGP Apeatu very well?

COP Mensah: Yes, I do.

James Agalga: Do you recall that in his formative years as an officer, he served as an ADC to a Vice President of this land?

COP Mensah: I do. I replaced him. When he was promoted Chief Superintendent and they said Chief Superintendent cannot be ADC to Vice President so I went to replace him then. So, I do.

James Agalga: You placed him as ADC to which Vice President?

COP Mensah: I replaced him as ADC to Kow Nkensen Arkaah. May his soul rest in peace.

James Agalga: Amen.

Atta Akyea: No, you want to convert here into a church or what?

James Agalga: Haha

Atta Akyea: Did you say amen?

James Agalga: Yes. Chairman he said may his soul rest in peace.

Atta Akyea: In fact, Vice, you know you’re overly excited you know. What is the matter?

James Agalga: Oh (laughter)

Atta Akyea:  When you said amen, I thought you have gone into the church.

James Agalga: Oh Chairman, Vice President Arkaah is somebody I respected so well and so when he passed, we were all sad. Commissioner was his ADC, I’m sure he was touched he has fun memories of him as his ADC. So, when he said may his soul respect in peace, I… I’m very spiritual sometimes, you know. So that he can rest in peace.

Atta Akyea: That is fine.

James Agalga: So that the lord will grants his soul rest

Atta Akyea: That’s fine

James Agalga: Yes. So now Commissioner, Mr. Asante-Apeatu rose through the ladder, having served under successive governments and became the IGP. Is that not correct?

COP Mensah: That is correct Mr. Chairman

James Agalga: When you talk about elections and how your party should fair, I want to ask you, in the course of your career, have you managed elections before?

COP Mensah: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

 

James Agalga: Can you give me examples?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, in 2008, I was the regional Operations Commander in the Ashanti region and at the same time the Divisional Commander for Manhyia and a Divisional Commander for Konongo and I managed the 2008 Elections in the Ashanti region.

James Agalga: Were the elections managed to your expectation?

COP Mensah: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to me. Yes

James Agalga: And at that time your party lost. We’re talking 2008?

COP Mensah: Yes 2008 Mr. Chairman.

James Agalga: Your party lost

Chairman & Witness: Which party are you referring to Mr. Chairman?

James Agalga: Chairman sorry! It is on record and he has not denied. Safe for the attempt to insert, substitute UP for NPP but he eventually stated that those were just notices. So, the records stand. There’s no denial. He hasn’t. Now Commissioner, which other elections you have been involved in?

COP Mensah: Almost all elections that have taken place ever since I joined the Police Service, I have been involved in.

James Agalga: Were you involved in the Ayawaso West Wuogon elections?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, I was not involved in the Ayawso West Wuogon elections.

James Agalga: What was your designation at the time, if I may ask?

COP Mensah: I was the Director-General in charge, Operations in the whole country.

James Agalga: At the Headquarters

COP Mensah: At the Headquarters. Yes

James Agalga: And yet you were not involved in the conduct of such as important election as Director-General Operations. I thought the police were deployed in that election?

COP Mensah: I was part of the strategic thinkers but not operational men. It was the responsibility of the Greater Accra region to supervise the election not headquarters.

James Agalga: Did you appear before the Emil Short Commission of inquiry?

COP Mensah: Yes, I did.

James Agalga: You did?

COP Mensah: Yes, I did.

James Agalga: Now when you are Director-General Operations, you have universal jurisdiction in the country, do you agree?

COP Mensah: Yes.

James Agalga: So, therefore, regardless of whichever region is tasked to an election, the Director-General does not absorb himself of responsibility because you are the overall boss in terms of operations and you have universal jurisdiction.

COP Mensah: The Director-General of Operations is in charge of the strategic planning of operation. He is not in charge of the town running operational duties.

James Agalga: In fact, you visited the Ayawaso West Wuogon after the election was mud with so many controversies, violence and so on. You visited the Ayawaso West Wuogon and granted interview extensively. These videos, I mean the media landscape is awash with those videos. Do you agree?

COP Mensah: Yes, Mr chairman. I visited Ayawaso election area after the incident and I granted an interview. That is true

James Agalga: Were you satisfied with the output of the police in that election as the Director-General of Operations?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman I was satisfied with what the police did at the time because eventually we were able to finish the elections and the declaration was made and everything ended.

James Agalga: Were you satisfied with the act of violence that was perpetuated in the conduct of the election?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman the violence that occurred in Ayawaso did not happen because of the selection. It was a totally different matter.

James Agalga: You know as a result of the violence the major opposition party withdrew from the election. You are aware Commissioner?

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman that is what I heard but I can’t confirm.

Atta Akyea: Vice, I want to come in here. The tape mentioned matters pertaining to Assin North. now I have been listening to you for close to 20 minutes, this a very big importation of Ayawaso matters and the rest of it. I want to find out from you how soon are you going to wind up on this particular Ayawaso matter?

James Agalga: Chairman, I won’t spend the whole day on Ayawaso. I want to draw some linkages

Atta Akyea: The establish the violence in

James Agalga: No, you see, this is an officer who has stated clearly that if certain changes are not made, outcomes of the elections would not be favourable to his party. He has been in the helm of affairs so far as the conducts of election are concerned before. So, I’m asking him whether what he superintended over, whether the strategic lever or at a tactical level, whether he was happy with the outcome and then I’m going to establish some linkages. So, I won’t keep long. Should I proceed?

Atta Akyea: Yes, I was wondering where you were going with that matter but if you say there are linkages then let have them quickly because of the fact that you are about to. You have to wine up.

James Agalga: You know I don’t like a long winding and long lines of questioning. I’m going to be snappy

Atta Akyea: I’m a senior at the bar and I know. He should know by now.

James Agalga: I don’t dispute your seniority.

Atta Akyea: I thought you were going to write a long essay about Ayawaso.

James Agalga: No…

Atta Akyea: But if you have repeated, let’s proceed?

James Agalga: Now Commissioner, when you state clearly that Alhaji whatever we need to do to get someone else to supervise these elections, we will need to do because as we speak, he is not good. He is not fine… So, for the election purposes, given your experience at Ayawaso, what would you have done differently if you were the IGP to ensure that your party is success from this contest?

Lawyer: Mr. Chairman of you can refer to the page which this quotation appears.

James Agalga: Page 6, it reads: Hmm…so hmm whatever we need to do to get somebody else to supervise this election we need to do because as we speak this IGP is not good. He is not fine with the military officers.

Atta Akyea: Your Colleague has exhausted that area.

James Agalga: No, he did not draw that linkages between the Ayawaso and what I’m seeking to do

Chairman: Humm….

James Agalga: Yes. I’m coming from a different tangent.

Atta Akyea: Okay

James Agalga: Totally different and COP understand that. He is a lawyer

COP Mensah: Mr. Chairman, per the question and what he read, I said he is not fine with the military officers, and I don’t even think the audio captured all. That is why I even think the audio was edited. I did not only mention the military officers but all other security institutions. And election security is not only by the police alone but all other security institutions including the military. And if you have an IGP who is not in correct relationship with all these security institutions then supervising the elections is going to be difficult. Because you need all these security institutions to come and support the police because during the election day, the number of polling stations and the number of centres we have, the police numbers cannot…and we need all these sister institutions to assist. So, if they are not together how do we do this? That was what I was telling Alhaji. And as I have already told the committee, this was a very private conversation.

James Agalga: COP, you are a former Director-General of Operations at the National Headquarters. You know that for the purposes of the management of election security, we have the election security taskforce. You are aware of the existence of the taskforce. Ain’t you?

COP Mensah: I’m very much aware, which I have headed before, for and on behalf of the IGP.

James Agalga: And that the taskforce is made up of the IGP as the chairman, members of the military command and the heads of other security agencies. Is that correct?

COP Mensah: That is so.

James Agalga: Now has the military ever threatened to withdraw from the taskforce in view of what you perceived as a bad blood between the IGP and the military?

COP Mensah: I never said so.

James Agalga: Have they?

COP Mensah: That has not happened.

James Agalga: So, you see the system put in place, therefore, has not been faulted. If there is a bad blood, it is at that level that the complains would be made and the withdrawal because there can coordination and collaboration. Do you agree?

COP Mensah: I don’t.

James Agalga: (sound went off) IGP

COP Mensah: I was the former Director of Operations.

James Agalga: Yes, in that capacity

COP Mensah: I did not supervise and election, it was supervised by the Greater Accra Regional Director of Operations.

James Agalga:  You said that at the strategic level you were involved. That is what you said?

COP Mensah: That is the thinking level.

James Agalga: Yes.

COP Mensah: Not operational level

James Agalga: Yes. It does not matter even in that capacity what would you have done?

COP Mensah: In respect of which one?

James Agalga: You see he is prevaricating the question. He understood the question. I said as director general

COP Mensah: No, what would I have done in respect of which elections?

James Agalga – As a former Director General – because you were lobbying to become IGP. You said if they take him (Dampare) to elections the outcomes will not be favourable. So, if you had that position what would you have done differently to influence the outcome of the elections in your party’s favour?

COP Mensah – I never said so. What I would have done was to be in good relationship with all the security institutions. So that we can all work together and make sure that the election is conducted peacefully so that no party can do any malfeasance work anywhere to subvert the will of the people.

James Agalga – [leads witness to a portion of the transcript] Go to page 11 of the transcript [of the leaked audio]. COP, beneath the statements you made in relation to President Mahama – page 11 that is the CV conversation, after you had spoken about the CV, you come down –[he reads the portion to the witness] then we have: Alhaji – He doesn’t put it there. So, now that he is the IGP and John Mahama is the presidential candidate for NDC did they contact themselves? Speaker: Ah! But they are always talking. They are always talking? That’s Alhaji. Then you (COP Mensah) said again that ah, the man (IGP) knows that when president Mahama comes he will maintain him. Please, do you still stand by these words?

COP Mensah – I said it.

James Agalga – So, the IGP is always talking to president Mahama you know that for a fact?

COP Mensah – That is from my intelligence.

James Agalga – This is a fact-finding Committee. You want to share with us?

COP Mensah – Mr.Chair, No.

James Agalga – You don’t want to share your intelligence with us?

COP Mensah – No.

James Agalga – [reads from the transcript] – Ah, the man knows that when president Mahama he will maintain him. Alhaji, he will maintain him as IGP? He is fooling himself it won’t work Then speaker – He knows. Do you think [ends the reading]. You see, COP I am suggesting to you that you lied when you told Bugri Naabu that the IGP is always talking to president Mahama. That was a figment of your own imagination. You have no evidence whatsoever. In fact, you have no intelligence whatsoever. This is your own concoction =. You don’t have any intelligence; you don’t have any evidence you said these things to Bugri Naabu just because you want to be the GP.

Counsel for COP interjects – Mr. Chairman, there is a portion of the question which we have some difficulties with. What the Vice Chairman is that he is suggesting to the witness that he lied under oath. We think that is a bit far-reaching. The statement that was made was that you are suggesting to him that he lied when he said so. You may disagree with him. We want the question to be rephrased so that he can answer it properly.

James Agalga – How do I rephrase it? I am putting something to him. If it is correct, he will say so. If it is not correct – is it because I used the word lie?

Counsel – That is so.

James Agalga – But I used the earlier word preverification what is the difference? I am putting something to him that that statement is not factual. It is not. It is for him to agree or disagree. You won’t be found wanting for perjury – I mean we will take into account other factors to determine perjury.

Atta Akyea interjects – Counsel 9referring to Agalga who is also a lawyer), when something is not factual it is a different thing all-together. But when you say somebody is lying, you understand, then he is trying to peddle deliberate falsehood. So, when you don’t know a fact, it doesn’t mean make you a liar. So, that is the difference my colleague (points finger at counsel for witness) is trying to show. But you always repackage it. So that it will achieve the same decency. But the whole point of the matter is that (Agalga interjects).

James Agalga – He has no evidence. So let me put it this way. So, I withdraw the first eeehhh counsel is not happy about how the question was couched. Commissioner, I am suggesting to you that as you sit here, you have no evidence to show that this IGP is constantly talking to president Mahama. You have no such evidence.

COP Mensah – Mr. Chair, my intelligence show that he does it.

James Agalga – Once you are drifting in that realm, is that something you will want to furnish the committee in-camera? Because it is something serious, you know.

Atta Akyea – There is nothing serious about it. Listen counsel (taps Agalga who was seated next to him on his left). Today, you have a leader of this country, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, The IGP can talk to President Akufo-Addo. Can’t he? And if there are issues for discussion so that may be the opposition might pipe down on a matter for reason of security, can’t the IGP call former president Mahama and say hello or – what is wrong with that?

James Agalga – Chairman, the context.

Atta Akyea – It doesn’t mean anything.

James Agalga – The context matters. The context defines the nature of what he put out there. The context, the context. If it is having a normal conversation no problem. But here there is a context. Here is a man who wants to replace an IGP. And one of the reasons is that he (current IGP) is constantly talking to the opposition leader, the former president. That is not something that is too good for the ears of Bugri Naabu. It means that when he uttered these words there were certain motives. So, when he says that as a security capo there is nothing wrong if he says somebody talks to another – yes, ordinarily there is nothing wrong but the context within which these words were said is problematic. And I am asking if he has any evidence, yes, he says he has intel.

Atta Akyea – He said he won’t share it.

James Agalga – But he hasn’t answered the second part of my question whether he would want to do that in-camera.

COP Mensah – No, Mr. Chairman

James Agalga – You won’t want to share it?

COP Mensah – No, Mr. Chairman.

The Committee talks among themselves as Agalga justifies his pushing the witness on that issues.

James Agalga – Commissioner, do you have any regrets about the leakage, everything you said in that audio. Do you have any regret?

COP Mensah – I want to understand the question. Are you asking me whether I have any regrets about meeting Bugri Naabu? That is different from me having any regret about the leakage as if I caused the leakage.

Atta Akyea – Please can you shoot the question again. Maybe it is lost on him.

James Agalga – You see commissioner, you were engaged in a conversation with a friend, someone you trusted. Now, you are captured as having said so many things. We don’t want to go into that. I am saying that as commissioner of police do you have any regrets that these things are in the public domain. Commissioner Mensah’s name is being mentioned left right, center. Do you have any regrets at all?

COP Mensah – Mr. Chairman, I must be frank, yes. Because I thought I was speaking to a well-respected confidential friend. I didn’t know that I was just speaking to such a person. Thank you.

Atta Akyea – Now this is the final question for the day. Commissioner, since you have laid the foundation that the tape is incomplete. Do you have the complete tape?

COP Mensah – Mr. Chairman, my intel suggests that what was used to tape the conversation was done by the current IGP. He sent some people to do it and after which he went for it. So, the tape from my intel is with the IGP and he caused it to be leaked. So, if this committee wants the tape, the right person to call before this committee is the Inspector General of Police.

Atta Akyea – Commissioner, with the greatest of respect, did you verify what your intel told you or this is a hearsay? Did you have the ocular proof from what your intel you or this is something you just believe could be true?

COP Mensah – This is not something I just believe it could be true. But Mr. Chairman, I wouldn’t want to say it here. But I can tell you in confidence. I can tell the committee in confidence but not here.

Atta Akyea – Be persuaded that there are a lot of outstanding matters. So, expect us to call you back. We will crave your indulgence that for the sake of what is going on you do not travel in the immediate future so that we will be able to have the benefit of your presence. So, for now you are released. And in good time you will hear from us.

COP Mensah – Mr. Chairman when you said we shouldn’t travel; I think you are talking about outside travel?

Atta Akyea – Yes, Sir. The travel I meant leaving the jurisdiction. Even that you have to notify us. So, for now you are discharged. So, the formal proceedings have come to a close. We have adjourned proceedings till Monday, ten o’clock in the fore noon.