President John Dramani Mahama has removed Dr George Akuffo Dampare of his duties as Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and chosen his deputy, Commissioner of Police (COP) Christian Tetteh Yohunu, as his successor.
This decision was made in a press statement issued by the presidency on Thursday, March 13, and signed by Felix Kwakye Ofosu, Minister of Government Communications.
According to the statement, President Mahama made the nomination in conjunction with the Council of State, as required by Articles 91 and 202 of the 1992 Constitution.
COP Yohunu is scheduled to be sworn into office on Friday, March 14.
The decision represents a significant leadership change in the Ghana Police Service, as the new administration works to reorganise critical security agencies.
COP Yohunu, a seasoned officer with 40 years of law enforcement experience, takes on the post of IGP at a time when the police department is undergoing major reforms.
The press statement underlined the government’s belief in Yohunu’s capacity to effectively lead the service, resulting in increased professionalism and security throughout the country.
The appointment comes shortly after Imani Ghana and security expert Prof Kwesi Aning jointly filed a suit in the Supreme Court, seeking to prevent the President from removing the Inspector-General of Police and other security agency heads until an ongoing case involving the matter is resolved in May 2025.
The plaintiffs argue that removing the security heads before the Supreme Court rules would be unfair.
In their suit, the plaintiffs prayed the court to grant an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, including His Excellency the President of the Republic, and the respective councils of the Ghana Immigration Service, Ghana Police Service, National Fire Service, and Ghana Prisons Service, from removing, terminating, dismissing, sacking, suspending, or otherwise interfering with the positions of the Director-General of the Ghana Prisons Service, the Co
The injunction was sought pending the final outcome of the litigation.
The plaintiffs further claimed that the suit poses severe constitutional questions, with the balance of convenience heavily favouring the applicants.
The plaintiffs further contended that the suit poses severe constitutional questions, with the balance of convenience heavily favouring the applicants.
