Court Sets Jan. 14 To Rule On ACP Agordzo Case Against IGP
The High Court in Accra has fixed January 14, 2022, to rule on an application filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Benjamin Agordzo challenging his interdiction from the police service.
The Senior Police Officer who has been interdicted for his alleged involvement in a coup plot sued the Inspector General of Police (IGP).
Dr Agordzo, the applicant in the case was interdicted on November 19, 2019, but efforts to have it revoked have yielded no results.
Attached to the application for Judicial Review is the Attorney General (AG).
In court on Monday, November 22, 2021, when the case was called, the court presided over by Justice Olivia Obeng Owusu said application is for judicial review and will rule on it based on the processes filed by the parties.
The court consequently fixed January 14, 2022 to determine the case.
Dr Agordzo, in his application, said, the refusal of the IGP as per letter dated May 27, 2020, to acede to the demand made on him by the lawyers on April 23, 2020 to revoke the order of interdiction he imposed on him in 2019 is unlawful.
Dr Agordzo per his affidavit in support of the motion for Judicial Review filed by his lawyer Martin Kpebu, he said his “continues interdiction is in breach of my right to administrative justice and due process.”
Dr Agordzo who has served in various capacities for over thirty (31) years and have risen through the ranks to the position of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) per his affidavit in support of the motion, said, ” on November 8, 2019, “the 1st respondent herein in the lawful exercise of powers granted to him under Regulation 105 (1) of the Police Service Regulations, 2012(C176) imposed on me an interdiction order with immediate effect from the 8th day of November 2019.”
Consequently, he said, his “salary was reduced by twenty-five (25%) and I was relieved of all duties as a police officer.”
The affidavit stated that, “after five (5) months of interdiction, I sought legal advice and was advised by counsel that 5-month old interdiction was unlawful because the 1st respondent was under obligation to revoke the interdiction after three (3) months if disciplinary proceedings were not instituted against me.”
SOURCE: kasapafm
