The ‘IGP Tape’ – the full parliamentary probe report


1.1 On 13th July, 2023, the Hon Member of Parliament for Ellembelle and Deputy Minority Leader, Mr Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah, in a Statement drew the attention of the House to matters of urgent public interest pursuant to Order 72 of the Standing Orders of Parliament (2000).

1.2 The Statement was in respect of a leaked audio recording which had gone viral on social media, regarding an alleged conspiracy by a high- ranking police officer and others to remove the current Inspector- General of Police (IGP), Dr George Akufo Dampare.


2.1 In July 2023, the attention of the House was drawn to the contents of a leaked audio recording in the public domain which bordered on matters of urgent public importance.

2.2 The audio captures a conversation between serving police officers including a Commissioner of Police and a former Northern Regional Chairman and stalwart of the New Patriotic Party (NPP).

2.3   Hon Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah explained that the conversation on the tape centred on a variety of subjects, mainly, a plot by some officers of the Ghana Police Service to cause the replacement of the current IGP, Dr George Akufo Dampare, with someone who would support the NPP to win the 2024 General Elections and ultimately “break the 8”.

2.4   In the view of the Hon Member, the content of the audio recording poses national security concerns as it points to politicisation within the Ghana Police Service (GPS). According to him, this may affect the integrity of the security management role for the GPS and could undermine free, fair, and transparent elections and ultimately, the sanctity of Ghana’s democracy.

2.5   The leaked audio recording uncovers a “treasonable” agenda to subvert the authority of the current IGP, Dr Dampare and the President of the Republic, His Excellency Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo who is vested with the exclusive authority to appoint or remove the IGP, by extension, the authority of the State.


Following contributions on the Statement on the Floor, the Rt Hon Speaker directed that a Special Committee be constituted under Order 191 of Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 262 (1)(a) of Standing Orders, 2024.

The Rt Hon Speaker, Mr Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, inter alia, stated as follows:

“Yesterday, we had a lot of comments from Hon Members. I do not know whether you are still interested in making comments; if not, I will proceed to direct that a Special Committee be established to investigate this matter because it goes beyond the Committee on Defence and Interior. We need some of you who are very good in Information Technology (IT) and other areas to submit your talents and skills to the Committee for this work to be done. So, I propose that we establish a Committee of seven Hon Members… Leadership will nominate three from each Side of the House and we would get a technical person to make the number seven” (Official Report, Thursday, 13th July, 2023).


Having regard to the sentiments expressed by Hon Members, a Special Committee was constituted on Tuesday, 25th July, 2023, to inquire into the allegations contained in the audio recording and report to the House.

The Committee comprised the following

Name                                                  Constituency                          Position

Hon Samuel Ata Akyea                      Abuakwa South                      Chairman

Hon James Agalga                              Builsa North                            Vice Chairman

Hon Patrick Yaw Boamah                  Okaikwei Central                    Member

Hon Ophelia Mensah-Hayford           Mfantseman                            Member

Hon Eric Opoku                                  Asunafo South                        Member

Hon Peter Lanchene Toobu                Wa West                                Member

Dr. Isaac Annan Esq, a lawyer and human rights expert, was nominated as the seventh person to serve as the technical person to the committee.

The Committee had the benefit of the services of a secretariat which provided essential administrative, procedural, logistical and research support.


The Terms of Reference for the Committee were as follows:

  1. a) To ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the leaked tape.
  2. b) To investigate the conspiracy to remove the current Inspector- General of Police.
  3. c) To investigate any other matter contained ni the audio recording.
  4. d) To recommend sanctions to persons found culpable, where appropriate.
  5. e) To make recommendations for reforms, where necessary.
  6. f) To make such other recommendations and consequential orders as the Committee may deem appropriate.


To assist in its investigations, the Committee made reference to the under listed documents, including legislation and case law:

  1. a) 192 Constitution of Ghana;
  2. b) Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act

1993 (Act 456);

  1. c) Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29);
  2. d) Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323);
  3. e) Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350);
  4. f) Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 2020 (Act 1030);
  5. g) Police Service Regulations, 2012(C.1. 76);
  6. h) Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana (2000);
  7. i) Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana (2024);
  8. j) National Security Strategy, 2020;
  9. k) Official Reports, Parliament of Ghana;
  10. l) Police Service Instructions (SI) as Amended;
  11. m) Abed Nortey v African Institute of Journalism and Communication and Others, CA J4/47/2013 (Unreported)

Kuruma v R (1955) CA 197;  Mrs Abena Pokua Ackah  v Agricultural Development Bank the( ADB case), SC JY/31/2015 (Unreported);

  1. p) R v Leatham [1861] 8 Cox C 498;
  2. q) R v Sang (1980) CA 402; and
  3. r) Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah, J6/04/207 SC(Unreported).


To carry out its investigations, the Committee relied on the following:

  1. a) a first audio recording/tape (leaked tape):
  2. b) a second audio recording/tape made available to the Committee by Chief Bugri Naabu;
  3. c) transcripts of the audio recordings/tapes (first and second audio recordings/tapes);
  4. d) testimonies of the witnesses; and
  5. e) verbatim reports of the proceedings.


The Committee, at its first meeting held on Thursday, 17th August, 2023, took cognisance fo its Terms of Reference and adopted the following methodology in the conduct of its inquiry:

  1. a) desk review of relevant laws, policies and literature;
  2. b) invitation of the witnesses to appear and give evidence in relation to the audio recordings pursuant to article 103 (6) (a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and Order 155 (a) and (b) of the Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 212 (a) and (b) of the Standing Orders, 2024;
  3. c) public and in camera interrogation of the witnesses in accordance with Order 199 of the Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 271 (1) and (2) of the Standing Orders, 2024;
  4. d) informing witnesses of their right to a counsel pursuant to Order 201 (3) of the Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 273 (3) of the Standing Orders, 2024;
  5. e) administering of oath to the witnesses pursuant to Order 203 of the Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 276 of het Standing Orders, 2024;

(f) examination of the leaked audio recording;

  1. g) examination of oral evidence adduced by the witnesses;
  2. h) recordings and transmitting copies of the witness evidence for their comments pursuit to Order 202 (1) of the Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 275 )1( and (2) of the Standing Orders, 2024;
  3. I) rejection of irrelevant evidence pursuant to Order 202 2() of the Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 572 (3) of Standing Orders, 2024; and
  4. j) production of verbatim reports on the proceedings of the Committee pursuant to Order 202 (1) of Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 275 (1) of Standing Orders, 2024.


The Committee first considered the private setting of the audio recordings and their contents and noted that the privacy rights of the witnesses do not outweigh the public safety or national security concerns that are likely to endanger free, fair, and transparent elections and ultimately undermine Ghana’s democracy. The Committee accordingly came to a determination that the audio recordings were admissible and serve as relevant evidence pursuant to article 18 (2) of the 1992 Constitution which states that:

*No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law and as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of the health or morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others*

The Committee was also guided by section 51 (2) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) which states that “Evidence is not admissible except relevant evidence.”

Furthermore, in order to determine the admissibility and relevance of the leaked audio recordings as evidence, the Committee considered the under listed cases:

  1. a) Ruphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah Asare Others (36 /04/ 2017)(unreported);
  2. b) Abena Pokua v Agricultural Development Bank ( C A / J A / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 ) (unreported);
  3. c) R v Leatham (1861] 8 Cox C 498; and

d)Kuruma (1955) AC 197.

In the case of Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah Asare & Others, the plaintiff attempted to submit an audio recording of a phone conversation as evidence but the defendant’s lawyer objected claiming it was recorded without consent and violated the right of privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that policy considerations should be taken into account, which entails striking a balance between the public and individual interest and adopting what is known as the discretionary exclusionary rule approach rather than the automatic exclusionary rule approach regarding the admissibility of evidence that violates a person’s right to privacy.

With regard to the context within which the discretionary exclusionary or inclusionary discretion rule can be resorted to in excluding or admitting evidence that hinges on human rights, Pwamang JSC said:

“In our understanding, the framework of our Constitution does not admit of an inflexible exclusionary rule in respect of evidence obtained in violation of human rights… The public interest, to which all constitutional rights are subject by the provisions of Article 12(2), in having persons who commit crimes apprehended and punished would require the court to balance that against the claim of rights of the perpetrator of the crime. It therefore seems to us that the framework of our Constitution anticipates that where evidence obtained in violation of human rights is sought to be tendered in proceedings , whether criminal or civil, and objection is taken , the court has to exercise a discretion as to whether on the facts of the case the evidence ought to be excluded or admitted..”

Similarly, with regard to the admissibility and relevance of audio recordings and their contents as evidence, Crompton J R v Leatham [1861] 8 Cox C 498, established that: this matters not how you get it (evidence); if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence”.

Again, in determining adminisibility and relevance of audio recording as evidence, in Kuruma oR (1955)CA 197, Kurumwa as searched by Kenyan police and two rounds of ammunition were discovered on him for which he did not have authorisation. The operative Statute stipulated that an officer must hold the rank of assistant inspector or above to legitimately search someone who is suspected of having ammunition, yet neither of the implicated officers held that position.

In this regard Lord Goddard CJ said:

“In their Lordships opinion, the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained.”

In view of the above, the Committee determined that the audio recordings/tapes were admissible and relevant as evidence in its investigation.


9.1. The Committee took evidence from six (6) witnesses under oath pursuant to Order 203 of the Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 276 of the Standing Orders, 2024. In accordance with Order 201 (3) of the Standing Orders, 2000 as revised by Order 273 (3) of het Standing Orders, 2024, the witnesses were legally represented as follows:

  1. a) Chief Bugri Naabu 1( witness) represented by Mr Raymond Dornyoh and Ms Gloria Amanda Dove.
  2. b) Commissioner of Police (COP) George Alex Mensah 2nd( witness), represented by Mr Derick Owusu-Boateng and Mr Raphael Owusu-Agyemang.
  3. c) Supt George Lysander Asare (3rd witness) represented by Mr Robert Nkansah Boateng.
  4. d) Supt Eric Emmanuel Gyebi (4thwhitness) represented by Mr James Nkrumah Gawuga.

Regional Chairman of the ruling NP and currently, a member of the National Council of Elders of the NPP. The witness was accompanied by his counsel, Mr Raymond Dornyoh, and Ms Gloria Amanda Dove.

The essence of the first engagement/meeting with the key witness, Chief Bugri Naabu, was to enable the Committee authenticate the first audio recording and identify persons whose voices were on it. Chief Bugri Naabu confirmed his voice as well as the identities of the other voices on the audio recording as “Commander Asare” and “COP Mensah”. The witness also identified the voice of another person as “Gyebi”, who according to him, was not physically present in their meeting.


10.1 – To ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the leaked tape

In order to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the audio recording (leaked audio tape), the Committee relied on the case of Abed Nortey verses  African Institute of Journalism and Communication and others, (Civil Appeal No. J4/47/2013 dated 26th February, 2014) which established the means of authenticating evidence by testimony of a witness with knowledge” and “authentication by admission”.

To begin with, the Committee sought to ascertain the veracity of the first audio recording based on the testimonies of the various witnesses.

Chief Bugri Naabu informed the Committee that the audio recording/tape was done by him and affirmed its authenticity.

Narrating the motivation for the recording, Chief Bugri Naabu informed the Committee that COP Mensah and Supt Asare had earlier visited him in his office and alleged that the IGP, if retained, would not support the Government to win the 2024 elections and “break the eight 8”.

The officers also alleged that His Excellency the President was not interested in replacing the IGP although he had been informed that the IGP was not a member of the NPP. They therefore saw the need of relay their sentiments through Chief Bugri Naabu to His Excellency the President.

According to Chief Bugri Naabu, he was alarmed about the allegations and consequently promised to lead them to the President. Subsequently, Supt Gyebi, who was spoken to on phone by both Supt Asare and Chief Bugri Naabu, was nominated by Supt Asare to accompany Chief Bugri Naabu to meet the President. He informed the Committee that Supt Gyebi did not show up as agreed. Still intrigued about the allegations, Chief Bugri Naabu thought it necessary to record the subsequent meetings and deliver the audio recording to the President.

On 31st August, 2023, at the fourth meeting of the Committee, COP Mensah, in his testimony in relation to the first audio recording, identified one of the voices on the audio as his and admitted to some aspects of it. He, however, claimed that some aspects of the audio recording had been edited. Specifically, he said:

“Mr Chairman, what I am saying is that, the tape that I heard today, there are so many things in that tape that I do not remember and there are certain things that I remember we discussed that are not on the tape”.

On the same date (31s August, 2023), in his testimony before the Committee, Supt Asare admitted that he could identify his voice on the first audio recording. However, he indicated that some parts of the audio recording were doctored because some conversations which took place during the meeting with Chief Bugri Naabu were not featured on the audio recording.

On the question of whether or not the first audio recording (leaked tape) was the full rendition of the conversation that transpired in Chief Bugri Naabu’s office, the key witness who had admitted to recording the conversations, disclosed in a meeting on Wednesday, 130 September, 2023, that he had the full version of the audio recording and subsequently tendered it on a flash drive (this happened to be the second audio recording), in further response to a question relating to the veracity of the two audio recordings/tapes, he said, “So far as I am concerned, it is the same thing.” (Verbatim Report, 10th October, 2023)

Upon receipt of the transcripts of the audio recording (i.e. the second audio recording/tape) tendered by Chief Bugri Naabu, the witnesses (COP Mensah and Supt Asare) raised no objection to the contents of the audio recordings (both first and second audio recordings/tapes).

Based on the above testimonies of the witnesses, the Committee concluded that the first and second audio recordings were authentic and represent a true rendition of the conversations that were recorded.

10.2 – To investigate the conspiracy to remove the current Inspector-General of Police in determining the meaning of “conspiracy” within the context of its inquiry, the Committee adopted the 11th Edition of the Meriam- Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of conspiracy which states as follows: A” plan secretly devised to accomplish an evil or treacherous end.”

Regarding the alleged conspiracy to remove the IGP to facilitate “breaking of the 8” by the NPP government, COP Mensah, in his testimony on 1st September, 2023, stated that the current IGP is a sympathiser of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) by virtue of the fact that he was an Aide De Camp (ADC) of the former President, His Excellency John Evans Atta Mills.

On the part of Supt Asare, the Committee noted from his testimony on 4ht September, 2023, that he met with Chief Bugri Naabu and discussed the possibility of replacing the current IGP with COP Mensah.

With regards to Supt Gyebi, the Committee noted that they agreed to play a part in replacing the IGP by accompanying Chief Bugri Naabu to the Presidency to rely their sentiments.

The Committee concluded that Chief Bugri Naabu, COP Alex Mensah, Supt Asare and Supt Gyebi indeed conspired to cause the removal of the IGP and have him replaced with a loyalist of the NPP and acting on that, resolved to meet the President to accomplish their goal

10.3. Other Matters Contained on the Tape

10.3.1. Election Security Management: its impact on free, fair, and transparent elections, national security and the sanctity of Ghana’s democracy The Committee took notice of the testimonies of Chief Bugri Naabu, COP Mensah and Supt Asare with respect to matters concerning election security management within the context of the Ghana Police Services’ elections security management role and, by extension, the role of the GPI as head of the National Election Security Task Force, and its implication no free, fair, and transparent elections.

In evaluating the testimonies of Chief Bugri Naabu, COP Mensah, Supt Asare and Supt Gyebi in respect for the attempt to conspire to remove the current IGP to allow for the appointment of an IGP capable of assisting in “breaking the 8”, the Committee is of the considered view that should the motivation behind the witnesses’ conspiracy to remove the IGP materialise, it could compromise the integrity of the election process in terms of safeguarding free, fair outcomes.

Additionally, the testimonies of Chief Bugri Naabu, COP Mensah and Supt Asare, in terms of the  conspiracy to remove IGP purely on partisan consultation as well as the suggestion of recourse to unorthodox  “mafia tactics” in a constitutional democratic dispensation, could undermine the will of the electoral thereby compromising free, fair, and transparent elections. Consequently, apart from its potential of compromising the outcome of the elections, it is considered that, a partisan or politicised election security management regime could also undermine the sanctity of Ghana’s nascent democracy.


10.3.2 Allegations of administrative injustices

The Committee took note of allegations on the audio recording pertaining to administrative injustices on promotions.

The Committee further noted that issues pertaining to administrative injustices such as promotions, were already before a Court of competent jurisdiction and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ). The complaints regarding promotions were sub judice, therefore, the Committee was unable to interrogate the matter.


10.3.3. Allegations of extra judicial killings

The Committee took notice of allegations of extra judicial killings made by Supt Asare. Consequently, the Committee presented Supt Asare with the opportunity to substantiate the allegations. However, Supt Asare was unable to substantiate the allegations.



The Committee, having examined the evidence gathered during its investigation, made the following findings of fact:


13.1.The first audio recording before the committee which gained widespread public attention after going viral was not the full rendition of the conversations that took place among Chief Bugri Naabu COP Mensah, Supt Asare and Supt Gyebi.

11.2. There was a second audio recording/tape which was a continuation of the first audio recording/tape which together with the first audio contained the full conversations that transpired among Chief Bugri Naabu, COP Mensah, Supt Asare and Supt Gyebi. The second audio recording/tape was provided to the Committee by Chief Bugri Naabu on a flash drive.

11.3. The testimonies of Chief Bugri Naabu, COP Mensah and Supt Asare authenticated the audio recordings/tapes.

1 1 . 4. There was an attempt by COP Mensah, Supt. Asare and Supt Gyebi to conspire and cause the removal of the IGP for which they (COP Mensah and Supt. Asare) solicited the assistance of Chief Bugri Naabu to have the President act in that regard.

11.5. The conspiracy by Chief Bugri Naabu, COP Mensah, Supt Asare and Supt Gyebi to remove the GIP based purely on partisan considerations, could undermine free, fair, and transparent elections and, ultimately, the sanctity of Ghana’s democracy.

11.6. The act of conspiring to replace the IGP by COP Mensah, Supt Asare and Supt Gyebi was political, unprofessional and an act of indiscretion as serving officers (COP Mensah retired in the course of the Inquiry), and contrary to Regulation 82 of the Police Service Regulations, 2012 .IC. 76) and section 17 (d)of the Police Service Act 1970 (Act 350).



The committee noted that the following actions sought to undermine the authority of Parliament:

12.1. Supt. Gyebi during his testimony under oath, on 31th August, 2023 denied ever speaking to Chief Bugri Naabu directly on his phone or on the phone of Supt Asare. However, when he appeared before the Committee again on 10th  October, 2023, he changed his earlier testimony and affirmed that he indeed spoke to Chief Bugri Naabu on phone thus:

“And the question I quote, ‘have you ever spoken to someone on Supt Asares’ phone who claims to be Bugri Naabu? And the answer I gave is incorrect. I answered no and I want to change yes.”

Supt Asare also in answering a question under oath posed by Hon Peter Lanchene Toobu no 4th  September, 2023 no whether he was present when Chief Bugri Naabu spoke to Supt Emmanuel Gyebi on phone, he responded in the negative. However, he changed his initial response to this question to the affirmative when he appeared before the Committee on 10ht October, 2023. In this instance, he said:

“Hon Chairman, I want to change my answer to ‘I was there when they spoke’ because that time the question was not all that straight forward.”

The Committee is of the view that Supt Asare and Supt Gyebi appeared to have acted in contempt of Parliament pursuant to Order 30 of the Standing Orders of Parliament (2000) as revised by Order 13 )1( of the Standing Orders of Parliament (2024) which states that:

“Any of the following acts or conduct constitute contempt of Parliament or breach of Parliamentary privilege;

(f) Submission of false, perverted, misleading, distorted, fabricated or scandalous statements in Parliament or before a Committee of Parliament.

In this regard, the Committee is of the opinion that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for appropriate action.


Based on the foregoing, the Committee recommends the following:

  1. a) That the House communicates its findings to His Excellency the President pursuant to Section 91 of the Police Service ,Act 1970 (Act 350) which vests disciplinary powers in the President, to determine het appropriate action in relation to the conduct of COP Mensah, Supt Asare and Supt Gyebi who appear to have breached section

17(d) for the Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350) and Regulation 82 1)( (c) of the Police Service Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 76.)

Section 71 d)( of Act 350) states that:

It shall be a misconduct for a police officer to engage in any activity outside his official duties which is likely to involve him in political controversy or to lead to his taking improper advantage of his position in the Police Service.”

Regulation 82(1) (c) of C.I. 67 states that:

“It is a major offense for an officer to engage in an activity outside official duties which is likely to:

  1. i) To involve the officer in political controversy; or
  2. ii) Lead to the officer taking improper advantage of that officer’s position in the Service.”
  3. b) That the National Elections Security Task Force should put in place appropriate measures to prevent the perception of manipulation of election security to influence electoral outcomes, in order to ensure peace and security before, during and after elections. This is important to assure citizens of the exercise of their franchise in a free, fair, and transparent manner to consolidate the democratic gains made under the Fourth Republic.
  4. c) That the President in exercising the power conferred aim to appoint the IGP under article 202(1) of the Constitution ensures that the nomination and appointment process involves key actors and stakeholders in the security intelligence sectors and be substantively consultative. The nomination and appointment process should also take into account the nominee’s demonstrable political neutrality, proven high sense of patriotism and professional competence combined with impeccable professional experience.

Therefore, in order to safeguard the sanctity and integrity for the nomination and appointment process for an IGP, the integrity of the nomination and appointment process for an IGP, the President should ensure that the process is devoid of politicization by “power brokers”, political cronies, and influence peddlers in order to engender the necessary public trust in the nominee IGP.

  1. d) As a corollary to the above and in relation to the appointment of the IGP, it is crucial to review or amend article 202(1) of the 1992 Constitution and the relevant statutes and subject the nominee to parliamentary approval in order to secure the political independence and legitimacy of the office of the IGP. This is important to protect the appointment process from perceptions of partisanship and political manipulation and, ultimately, preserve the sanctity of the appointment process.
  2. e) In order to protect the integrity of election security management, the IGP, in his capacity as the head of the National Election Security Task Force, should manifest openness in the assignment for security personnel involved in such operations. Should such personnel be found to have behaved unscrupulously in the course of their work, including violently intimidating a voter, the GPS or the GPI should take the necessary disciplinary action promptly.
  3. f) The GPS institutes regular professional training of police personnel at all levels on the legal, policy, and normative frameworks (national, regional, and international) for regulating professional and ethical policing as well as professional dilemmas. To this end, it is further recommended that the Police Council/POMAB should work in tandem with the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Attorney General the Commission on Human Rights a n d Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) and Civil society organizations.
  4. g) Urgent steps should be taken through legislation for the establishment of an independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to play watchdog role as well as ensuring accountability by providing for a complaints mechanism, while ensuring and safeguarding professional standards within the Service. Essentially, the IPCC as the Police Ombudsman, would promote peace and security, prevent police misconduct, abuse of power and monitor professional misconduct.
  5. h) That the IGP and POMAB should endeavour to adhere to the ethos of administrative justice/good governance as outlined in articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution, and particularly as the Ghana Police Service is part of the public services of Ghana as enshrined in article 190 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.
  6. i) An urgent need for legislation to amend section 37(7) of C.I. 76, 2012, which states:

“An officer who attains higher academic qualification is not entitled to promotion by reason only of that academic qualification.”

The proposed legislative amendment, would address the legal restriction placed on police personnel, who with the approval GPS, improve their educational standards, including examinations that lead to membership for professional bodies.

This would improve human resources and professional skills within the GPS as well as improve morale of affected personnel. 


The Committee recommends to the House to adopt its report on the inquiry into the content of a leaked audio tape of a high-ranking police officer and others in an alleged conspiracy to remove from office the current Inspector-General of Police, Dr George Akufo Dampare, and related matters.

Respectfully submitted


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here