The alleged report on IGP leaked Audio Tape

This is the leaked report on the Leaked Audio Tape where some senior police officers were allegedly plotting to remove the IGP from Office. Mr Atta Akyea who chaired the Parliamentary committee that probed the allegation has denied that his outfit has released any report.

The ranking member on the committee, Mr James Agalga, however, says the content of their draft report is “NOT substantially different” from the leaked report he had read on the social media.

The following is the content of the alleged report.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO CONTENTS OF A LEAKED AUDIO TAPE OF A HIGH-RANKING POLICE OFFICER (COMMISSIONER OF POLICE) AND OTHERS IN A CONSPIRACY TO REMOVE FROM OFFICE THE CURRENT INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE AND RELATED MATTERS

 

DRAFT REPORT

 

• INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to a Statement made by the Hon. Member of Parliament for Ellembelle, Mr. Emmanual Armah Kofi Buah, on 12^th July, 2023 in respect of a leaked audio tape alleging that certain high ranking police officers, conspired to remove the current Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Dr. George Akuffo Dampare. At the Twenty-Seventh Sitting of the Second Meeting of the Eighth Parliament held on Tuesday, 12^th July 2023, the Rt. Hon. Speaker, Alban Sumana Kingsford Babgin, constituted a Special Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) in line with article 103(1) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution and Standing Order 191 to investigate the allegation contained in the leaked audio tape.

Article 103(1) (2) of the Constitution provides:

• Parliament shall appoint standing committees and other committees as may be necessary for the effective discharge of its functions.
• Committees of Parliament shall be charged with such functions, including the investigation and inquiry into the activities and administration of ministries and departments as Parliament may determine; and such investigation and inquiries may extend to proposals for legislation.

Standing Order 191 of Parliament states:

The House may at any time by motion appoint Special or AD Hoc Committee to investigate any matter of public importance; to consider any Bill that does not come under the jurisdiction of any of the Standing or Select Committee.

Membership of the Committee comprises the following:

• Samuel Atta Akyea – Chairman
• James Agalga – Vice Chairman
• Patrick Yaw Boamah – Member
• Ophelia Mensah-Hayford – Member
• Eric Opoku – Member
• Peter LancheneToobu – Member
• Isaac Lartey Annan – Technical Person/Member

 

• THE ALLEGATIONS

The Statement made by the Hon. Member of Parliament for Ellembele, Mr. Emmanuel Armah Kofi Buah, on 12^th July 2023 sought to invoke the appropriate Standing Orders of Parliament culminating in the setting up by the Rt. Hon. Speaker, Alban Sumana Bagbin, a Parliamentary Inquiry, among others, into the authenticity of the contents of the leaked audio tape.  The allegations of conspiracy to remove the IGP by some high-ranking police officers, who were captured in the leaked audio tape, are as follows:

• A plot/conspiracy by certain high ranking police officers to remove from office the current Inspector General of Police (IGP), Dr. George Akuffo Dampare, and cause the President of the Republic of Ghana to appoint in his stead an IGP who is more submissive, loyal and pliant to the Government of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in its quest to “break the 8” and, ultimately, win the 2024 General Elections.
• The authenticity of the contents of the leaked audio tape, if not thoroughly investigated and ascertained, portend grave danger to national security and, in particular, the integrity of the security management role of the Ghana Police Service (GPS) relative to the upcoming 2024 General Elections.
• The contents of the leaked audio tape revealing the presence of partisan elements within the top hierarchy of the Ghana Police Service, whose loyalty is solely to the NPP rather than the Republic of Ghana, unveils serious national security concerns that must be investigated by Parliament.
• The purported rift between the current IGP and the officers of the Ghana Armed Offices, which has led to strained relations between the two state security agencies, if not thoroughly investigated, stands the risk of compromising the security of the state.
• The contents of the leaked audio tape, particularly the assertions of the said highly ranking police officers, confirm entrenched politicization of the security agencies under the current government, which could potentially undermine free, fair and transparent elections and, ultimately, the sanctity of Ghana’s democracy.
• The leaked audio tape uncovers a treasonable agenda to subvert the authority of the current IGP as well as power of the President of the Republic who is vested with the exclusive authority and power to appoint or remove an IGP for the GPS.

 

 

3.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE COMMISSION

The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Committee are as follows:

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

4.0 LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY CONTEXT

• Constitution of Ghana, 1992
• Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323)
• Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350)
• CHRAJ Act, 1993 (Act 456)
• Police Service Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 76)
• Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 2020 (Act 1030)
• Police Service Instructions as Amended (SI)
• National Security Strategy, 2020
• Standing Orders of Parliament, 2000

4.1 APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL AND NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966
• United Nations Code of Conduct for law Enforcement Officials (GA Res. 34/169 of 17^th December, 1979).
• ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, (A/SP1/12/01 dated 21^st, December 2001)
• ECOWAS PROTOCOL Relating to Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security, 1999.

4.2 CASE LAW RELIED ON

The case law relied on in the course of the investigation, the evidence gathered and the ensuing analyses of the evidence gathered in the course are the following:

• Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah J6/04/207 SC (Unreported)
• Abena Pokua Ackah v Agricultural Development Bank (the ADB case) SC J4/31/2015 dated28^TH July, 2016 (unreported)
• Abed Nortey vs. African Institute of Journalism Civil Appeal Number J8/49/2013 dated 15^th April 2013 (unreported)
• Republic v. Accra Circuit Court; Ex Parte Appiah [1982-83] GLR 129
• State V. Boahene [1963]2GLR 554
• Kwabena Amaning @ Tagor&Ors. V the Republic [2009]23 MLRG 78,
• Asiamah vrs The Republic Criminal Appeal No. J3/06/2020 delivered on 4th November 2020,
• Akiluvrs The Republic [2017-2018] SCGLR444@445
• R v Leatham [1861] 8 Cox CC 498
• Kuruma v R [1955] AC 197
• R v Sang [1980] AC 40

 

5.0 METHODOLOGY/APPROACH TO THE INVESTIGATION

To unravel the facts and gather relevant evidence, the Committee adopted the following approach to assist its investigation:

1. Public hearing.
2. Face-to-face interrogation of witnesses.
3. In-camera interrogation of witnesses.
4. Desk review of relevant laws, policies and literature relative to the subject matter of the Parliamentary Inquiry/Investigation.

6.0 INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS/CONCERNS RAISED IN THE LEAKED AUDIO TAPE

The Committee conducted investigation into the allegations/issues of concern contained in the leaked audio tape (first audio tape), which was initially made available to it and formed the basis of the ToR.  The first audio tape together with an additional audio tape (second tape), which was made available to the Committee by Chief Bugri Naabu, served as the primary source of evidence for the interrogation of the witnesses who testified before the Committee.  The Committee’s modes of investigation and interrogation of witnesses were mainly through public and in-camera hearings.

6.1 WITNESSES, APPEARANCE AND INTERROGATION

The following witnesses were interrogated by the Committee:

• Chief Daniel Bugri Naabu (a.k.aNamong Daan).
• Commissioner of Police (COP) George Alex Mensah.
• George Lysander Asare.
• Eric Emmanuel Gyebi.
• IGP Dr. George Akuffo Dampare.
• Albert Kan Dapaah, Minister of National Security (in-camera only).

 

6.2 LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF WITNESSES

• Raymond Dornyoh and Gloria Amanda Dove – Lawyers for Chief Daniel Bugri Naabu, Paramount Chief of Namong (a.k.a Naamong Daan)
• Deric Owusu-Boateng and Mr. Raphael Owusu Agyemang – Lawyers for COP George Alex Mensah.
• Robert Nkansah Boateng – Lawyer for Supt George Lysander Asare.
• James Nkruma Gawuga – Lawyer for Supt. Eric Emmanuel Gyebi.
• Kwame Gyan and Mr. Sylvester Asare – Lawyers for IGP Dr. George Akuffo Dampare.
• Sena Siaw-Boateng, Mr. Abukakari Musah and Mr. Winifred Brefo Agyekum – Legal Team of the Legal Department of Ministry of National Security and Legal Representatives for Hon. Albert Kan Dapaah, Minister for National Security.

6.3 EVIDENCE RELIED ON

The Committee relied on the following as the main sources of evidence to assist its investigation:

• The leaked audio tapes (the first audio tape and the additional (second tape) made available to the Committee by Chief Bugri Naabu.
• Testimonies of the witnesses who were interrogated by the Committee;
• COP George Alex Mensah
• George Lysander Asare.
• Eric Emmanuel Gyebi.
• IGP Dr. George Akuffo Dampare.

–  Hon. Kan Dapaah, Minister of National Security (in-camera only).

6.4 OPENING STATEMENTS/REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE

At the Committee’s maiden public hearing on 31^st August, 2023, which had in attendance 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th witnesses, Hon. Atta Akyea and Hon. James Agalga, Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, took turns to make a few opening statements/remarks.  In his opening statement/remarks, Hon. Atta Akyea welcomed the witnesses present and their legal teams.  Furthermore, Hon. Atta Akyea drew the witnesses’ attention to a few constitutional issues, as well as matters likely to have criminal law implications.  In this connection, he made reference to Article 103 of the 1992 Constitution (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution) that grounds the constitutional and legal bases for setting up of the Committee including its inherent powers.

Specifically, Article 103(3) of the Constitution provides:

          Committees of Parliament shall be charged with such functions, including the investigation and inquiry into the activities and administration of ministries and departments as Parliament may determine; and investigation and inquiries may extend to proposals for legislation.

Also, Article 103(6) of the Constitution provides:

A committee appointed under this article shall have the powers, rights and privileges of the High Court or a Justice of the High Court at the trial for

1. Enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise;
2. Compelling the production of documents; and
3. Issuing a commission or request to examine witnesses.

Again, Hon. Atta Akyea made reference to the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and reminded the witnesses regarding the need to be guided by the oaths they swore before the Committee to speak the truth in order to avoid falling into the throes of perjury.  Relatedly, he referred to Section 211 of Act 29, which states:

A person is guilty of perjury, if in any written or verbal statement made or verified by him upon oath any Court, or public officer, or before the President or any Committee thereof he states anything he knows to be false in a material particular or which he has no reason to believe to be true.

On his part, Hon. Agalga reminded the witnesses about the Committee’s mandate/ToR and reiterated the need for them to assist the Committee unearth the truth.  He assured the witnesses that the Committee was not set up to witch-hunt anybody, instead its members would endeavour to proffer meaningful recommendations after the interrogation of witnesses in order to facilitate relevant policy and legislative reforms for enhanced service delivery by the GPS.

Finally, both Hon. Atta Akyea and Hon. Agalga stressed that the police service is not on trial; they assured the witnesses, who were to testify before the Committee of the privileges and immunities accorded them as enshrined in Article 121 of the Constitution, which provides, among others, thus:

• A person summoned to attend to give evidence or produce a paper, book, record or other document before Parliament, shall be entitled, in respect of his evidence, or the production of the document, as the case may be , to the same privileges as if he were appearing before a court.

6.5 PRELIMINARY LEGAL OBJECTIONS/ISSUES

Prior to rendition of their testimonies before the Committee’s public hearings on 31^st August, 2023 and 1^st September, 2023 respectively, Counsel for COP Alex Mensah, Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang, and Counsel for the IGP, Dr. George Akuffo Dampare (hereinafter referred to as “the IGP”), Mr. Kwame Gyan, raised preliminary legal objections/issues as follows:

1. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang alluded to the veracity of the source of the leaked audio tape (first audio tape) as transcribed and marked Exhibit 1.

As a result, he sought to impugn the admissibility of the first audio tape which, according to him, his client did not have the benefit of accessing and therefore would not be able to answer to the authenticity of the statements and attributions contained therein.

1. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang further argued that the Committee’s ToR was not made available to his client to enable him ascertain exactly the scope of the Committee’s mandate. As a corollary to this objection, he contended that his client was not given a copy of the leaked audio tapes to enable him prepare adequately for his defence to the averments contained therein.
2. Harping on the composition of the Committee, Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang also alluded to likelihood of bias on grounds of alleged prejudicial comments attributable to two members of the Committee namely; Hon. Peter LancheneToobu, MP for Wa West; and Hon. James Agalga, MP for Builsa South and Vice Chairman of the Committee. He contended that his allegation of bias levelled against the two MPs was premised on the fact that, as members of the Committee, they breached his client’s right to a fair hearing arising from prejudicial statements/comments attributed to them in the media before the Committee started its work.

Regarding Hon. Toobu, Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang contended that he was reported on ghanaweb.co and Neat FM to have said: “hell fire awaits leaked tape”.  This statement/reportage, according to him, was likely to compromise the impartiality of Hon. Toobu’s membership of the Committee.

Concerning Hon. James Agalga, Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang contended that the Ghanaian Standard newspaper was reported to have attributed a statement/comment to Hon. Agalga thus: “the action of the one behind the audio for me, pass for treason.  And this matter must be dealt with as such.  It is an attempt to subvert the will of the people in 2024”.  In the opinion of Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang, the alleged statement/reportage attributed to Hon. Agalga endangered his client in the light of being seen as treasonous before the Committee could start its investigation, and further contended that, the attribution could portend prejudice likely to compromise the impartiality of Hon. Agalga’s membership of the Committee.

In the light of the above, Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang contended that, the above-mentioned members of the Committee should rescue themselves from its membership.

1. On his part, Mr. Kwaku Gyan, Counsel for IGP raised legal objection regarding the presence of 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th witnesses who, according to Mr. Kwame Gyan, had made wild, unsubstantiated allegations against his client in the course of their testimonies before the Committee in the absence of his client. As a result, he contended that, the presence of the witnesses was unfair, unjust, inequitable and offenced Article 296 of the Constitution in relation to the exercise of discretion by the Committee. Additional objection raised by Mr. Kwame Gyan was in respect of the Committee’s process in terms of the mode of evidence gathering – i.e. the sequencing of evidence taking – whereby witnesses were afforded the opportunity to give oral testimonies and were recalled after one week to substantiate their claims.  Also, he raised objection regarding the need for the Committee to stay within its mandate by restricting its investigation to matters involving the leaked audio tapes, particularly the ascertainment of their veracity and the alleged conspiracy to remove the IGP.

 

6.6 RESPONSES/COMMENTS BY HON. PETER LANCHENE TOOBU AND HON. JAMES AGALGA IN RESPECT OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS.

In his response, Hon. Toobu denied the allegation of bias attributed to him by Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang.  Again, he denied knowledge of, and expressed shock and surprise at the words purportedly made by him relative to the alleged reportage stressing that he did not utter those words attributed to him.

In the same vein, in his response to the allegation of bias, Hon. Agalga denied the statement attributed to him as allegedly carried by the Ghanaian Standard. Clarifying further, he indicated that, the matter originated from a debate on the Floor of Parliament for which he contributed to the Statement read by the Deputy Minority Leader, Hon. Armah Kofi Buah.

According to him, he canvassed for the idea of a probe and made conditional statements to the effect that Parliament should not take things on their face value and, if indeed, the voices/statements on the leaked audio tape (first audio tape) were authenticated to be true, then the conduct of the officers captured in the audio tape could pass for treason.

Therefore, Hon. Agalga submitted that, the statements he made on the Floor of Parliament on the matter were privileged and not prejudicial to impute any bias on his part.  Touching on the issue of fair hearing that imputed violation of his client’s right, Hon. Agalga further submitted that, in line with the Committee’s mandate/ToR as a fact-finding body, the Committee would give every witness, who appeared before it as its recommendations would be subjected to debate at the Plenary of Parliament.

 

 

6.7 COMMENTS AND RULING BY CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, HON. SAMUEL ATTA AKYEA, IN RESPECT OF THE PRELIMINARY LEGAL OBJECTIONS/ISSUES.

The Chairman of the Committee, Hon. Atta Akyea, commented on the preliminary legal objections/issues as follows:

• Admissibility of Leaked Audio Tape

Relative to the objection regarding the source of the leaked audio tape and its admissibility, it was the considered view of Hon. Atta Akyea that the source of the leaked audio tape was of no consequence to the materiality of the evidence to be adduced before the Committee.  Besides, he emphasized that, the audio tape (the first audio tape) had leaked, gone viral and was even in the public domain and therefore had been subjected to media and public discussions.

In affirming the legal position taken by Hon. Atta Akyea regarding admissibility of the leaked tapes as the primary evidence of the Committee regardless of its source and also taking into the privacy rights vis-à-vis the public interest, Hon. Agalga made reference to the case of Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah Asare &Ors(J6/04/2017) (unreported) (hereinafter referred to as “the Raphael Cubagee case”).  In the Raphael Cubagee case, the Supreme Court’s interpretative mandate was invoked by the plaintiff (Raphael Cubagee) for guidance in respect of interpretation of Article 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution to determine the scope as to whether secret recording of telephone conversation amounts to a breach of this constitutional provision and whether evidence procured under such a circumstance is admissible or not.

Article 18 of the Constitution provides:

• No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communicated 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 health or morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others.

Another dimension of the Raphael Cubagee case for which the plaintiff sought interpretation by the Supreme Court borders on whether the secret recording which was obtained in violation of the affected Defendant’s constitutional right to privacy ought to be excluded from the evidence being led in the case despite the fact that its contents were relevant to the matters in contention.

Whilst acknowledging the sanctity of privacy rights, which according to the Supreme Court, include the right to be secretive and anonymous as guaranteed under Article 18(2) of the Constitution which ought to be protected from unwanted intrusion, scrutiny and publicity.  In making this determination, the Supreme Court relied on the case of Abena Pokua v Agricultural Development Bank (CA/JA/31/2015) (unreported) as guidance.

Remarkably, in the Raphael Cubagee case, the Supreme Court alluded to the fact that, in enforcing human rights, the court ought to take into account policy considerations by performing a balancing act that promotes the public interest as against the individual interest and adopt what it termed the discretionary exclusionary rule approach as against the automatic exclusionary rule approach regarding admissibility of unconstitutional/illegal evidence that breaches the right to privacy of a person.

Emphasizing the public interest argument that propels recourse to the discretionary exclusionary or inclusionary discretion rule approach, and with specific reference to Article 12(2) of the 1992 Constitution, Pwamang JSC posited thus:

In our understanding, the framework of our Constitution does not admit an inflexible exclusionary rule in respect of evidence obtained in violation of human rights.  With the rudimentary facilities available to our police to fight crime it would be unrealisitic to exclude damning evidence of a serious crime on the sole ground that it was obtained in circumstances involving a violation of the human rights of the perpetrator of the crime. 

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 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.

The above position of the law regarding admissibility of evidence in trials irrespective of the source of the evidence and how it was obtained, has been profusely espoused in a plethora of cases.  For instance, in R v Leatham [1861] 8 Vox CC 498,in deciding relevance and admissibility of illegally or improperly obtained secret communication as evidence, Crompton J, in applying the inclusionary discretion rule in respect of admissibility of the evidence, said: “it matters not how you get it [evidence]: if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.

Similarly, in Kuruma v R [1955] AC 197, Lord Goddard CJ at pp 203-204 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… There can be no difference in principle for this purpose between civil and a criminal case.

Again, in R v Sang [1980] AC 402. Lord Viscount said:

Save with regard to admissions and confessions and generally with regard to evidence obtained from the accused after commission of the offence, he [the trial judge] has no discretion to refuse to admit rlevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means.  The court is not concerned with how it was obtained.

In view of the above statement of the law on admissibility on secret communications, including recordings, it is the considered view of the Committee that the legal objections raised in this regard cannot be sustained.

• Likelihood of Bias

Commenting on Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang’s preliminary objection relative to the allegation of likelihood of bias attributed to Hon. Toobu and Hon. Agalga, Hon. Atta Akyea reiterated statement/reportage attributed to Hon. Agalga carried by the Ghanaian Standard newspaper.  In this regard, Hon. Atta Akyea opined that, there would be no motivation on the part of the Committee members to damage the reputation of any witness who appeared before the Committee.  Additionally, he assured the witnesses that, there was no malice-aforethought and, as a fact-finding body, the Committee was only interested in arriving at the truth of the issues in contention and therefore the Committee’s proceedings would be open and transparent to elicit the necessary trust of all Ghanaians.  Therefore, he entreated the witnesses to disregard any issue of prejudice or bias and focus on the evidence that would be adduced in the course of the proceedings to arrive at the truth.

Regarding Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang’s submission for consequential order for rescusal of Hon. Toobu and Hon. Agalga from membership of the Committee, Hon. Atta Akyea stated that, appointment of the Committee’s members was the exclusive prerogative of the Speaker of Parliament for which he was not disposed to usurp thereby undermining the authority of the Rt. Ho. Speaker of Parliament.

• Accessibility of Committee’s ToR and the Leadked Audio Tapes.

As stated above, the first audio tape, which was available to the Committee went viral and was available in the public domain.  Meanwhile, Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang indicated that there were more than one leaded audio tapes in the public domain.  However, Hon. Atta Akyea disagreed with him and asserted that, there was only one audio tape which was made available to the Committee on its being set up, which the Committee has in its custody as its primary source of evidence.  Concerning accessibility of the Committee’s ToR, a member of the Committee, Hon. Patrick Boamah, publicly read out the ToR and later made same available to Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang, as well as all the witnesses present at the hearing (i.e. 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th  witnesses as described in paragraph 8.0 below).  Also, Hon. Atta Akyea with the concurrence of members of the Committee dicided that, the first audio tape be played and listened to by the witnesses (2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th witnesses), who were present at the public hearing on 31^st August, 2023.

• In terms of the legal objections/issues raised by Mr. Kwame Gyan, Hon. Atta Akyea commented on the presence of the witnesses refereed to above and point out that, there was no indication that the Committee was going to call the IGP because the first audio tape did not contain any reference to him (the IGP) thereby necessitating his being summoned to app[ear before the Committee; according to him, it was the allegations made against the IGP by the individuals whose voices were captured in the first tape and, cognizant of the audi alteram partem rule, the Committee deemed it appropriate to summon the IGP to enable him clear himself of the allegations levelled against him.
• In view of the above, Hon. Atta Akyea contended that, the presence of the witnesses was inconsequential and would not compromise the integrity of the process.  Also, he drew Mr. Kwame Gyan’s attention to the Committee’s primary interest in the evolving evidence contained in the first and second audio tapes which, if discarded or overlooked by the Committee, would amount to miscarriage of justice.

6.8CHAIRMAN’S RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/ISSUES

Based on the above considerations, Ho. Atta Akyea, overruled, as unmeritorious, the preliminary objections/issues canvassed by Mr. Kwaku Owusu Agyemang and Mr. Kwame Gyan.  The following witnesses appeard and testified before the Committee:

6.9 Testimony of Chief Daniel Bugri Naabu (1^st Witness)

Chief Daniel Bugri Naabu testified before the Committee in a public hearing on 28^th August, 2023 and in-camera hearings on 13^th September, 2023, 10^th October, 2023 and 11^th October, 2023.

His testimony related to authentication of his voice, as well as those individuals whose voices were heard in the leaked tapes, all of whom he identified as COP Alex Mensah, Supt. George Lysander Asare and Supt. Eric Emmanuel Gyebi. Excerpts of Chief Bugri Naabu’s testimony on 28^th August, 2023 authenticating the audio is as follows:

Mr Chairman: You want to tell this Committee that all that was said on the tape is valid?

Chief Naabu: It is valid.

Mr Chairman: Members of the Committee, he has authenticated the tape. He has identified the individuals who were speaking on the tape.

In his entire testimony, Chief Bugri Naabu unwaveringly confirmed authorship of the leaked audio tapes and their contents, including the statements contained therein, which were attributed to COP Alex Mensah, Supt. George Lysander Asare and Supt. Eric Emmanuel Gyebi.

According to him, Supt. Emmanuel Gyebi came into the picture when Chief Bugri Naabu spoke to Supt. Emmanuel Gyebi on Supt. George Lysander Asare’s phone after it was suggested to Chief Bugri Naabu by Supt. George Lysander Asare that Supt. Emmanuel Gyebi should accompany the two of them to meet the President.

According to Chief Naabu, Supt. Emmanuel Gyebi was brought into the meeting on phone by Supt. George Lysander Asare to corroborate their earlier allegations against the IGP and also give his ( Supt. Gyebi’s) support for the removal of the IGP from Office.

MrToobu: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Chief, would you be so kind to share the contact number of Mr Gyebi with the Committee?

Chief Naabu:Mr Chairman, I did not see him. I do not know him face to face. However, when Asare was talking to me about who to go and see the President — He Commander Asare said he was going to travel so he would rather choose somebody called Gyebi to go with me to the President’s house. So, he made Gyebi talk to me on phone. Gyebi was on phone talking to me but I recorded him on phone.

Gyebi talked to me on phone that the following day on Sunday, he would go with me. So I asked the President’s security that on Sunday, what time should I come? And they said he was not in town but I could come and try from 3.00 going. I told Gyebi to meet me at Afrikiko so that I would take him and we would all go together.

Furthermore, on the same date of his testimony, Chief Bugri Naabu confirmed that he was responsible for recording COP Alex Mensah, Supt. George Lysander Asare and Supt. Eric Emmanuel Gyebi during their meetings to discuss the removal of the IGP.  He, however, said Supt. Eric Emmanual Gyebi was not present physically.  On August 28^th, 2023, the following further ensued:

Mr Peter LancheneToobu: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman for giving me the opportunity to open the very important gate for this interrogation. Chief, let me first of all say thank you very much for highlighting your credibility which many people who know you do not doubt. I want to ask you a very simple question. You talk of Commander Asare and Commissioner Mensah. Apart from that day when they came to you, have you met them anywhere before?

Chief Naabu: I have never met Commander Asare anywhere but it was the time before Assin North election, one of my children named Tei Bugri called me and said “Daddy, one police officer wants me to bring him into your office.” And I asked him, “for what?” My son then said, “He said he cannot tell me, I would bring him to you so that he will tell you what he wants you for.” I said alright, my son can come with him. So it is Asare who came with that my son.

When Asare came, he introduced himself to me that he is a police commander, he wanted to come and see me. I said, “here I am. You can go ahead.” What he said was what I just want to say. He said he wanted to come and see me so that I could talk to the President and that what is going on is not the best. So I asked, “to talk to the President about what?”

He said the Inspector   General of Police (IGP) is not with the Government or the party. If we want to use him for 2024 Election, we cannot “break the eight (8)” as we are talking about. So I asked him why and he said the IGP is a member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC). I asked how can an NDC person become an IGP? You waited for him to be given the position and you are coming to talk at this time of the day.

Have you seen the President? He said the IGP is a party member and the message has reached the President but the President is not interested in changing the IGP. So, they have already sent so many people to him and in the long run somebody said maybe if I could give a word to the President, maybe he would listen. I said alright. I cannot go unless you convince me that the man is an NDC man.

If I go and say without knowing and later discover that what I am telling the President is not true, the President would not have respect for me and as a Chief, founding member of the party, and party official, I do not want to go and say something that later they would say it is not true. They started telling me about the IGP and his up and doing.

He even told me that this Assin North election, I f we allow IGP to go there, we would lose the elections and I became scared. The IGP does not go there to vote but if he can go there and we can lose the election, then my “anus was shaking”.

He begged me that I should wait and see, election is coming in 10 days’ time and with this IGP present there, we would end up getting nothing. So, I listened to him, I said I would go and tell the President, however, before I go, I had to make sure that what I am going to tell him is the truth and nothing but the truth.

I rescheduled him for a different day then I contacted some members of the Police Council and told them that this is what a police officer has come to tell me about our IGP and he as a member of the Police Council also gave me his opinion. He disagreed with what Commander Asare said. We tried to call our Interior Minister; he did not pick my call. When I was a Chairman of the Northern Regional Party, I used to have a bodyguard.

I called that bodyguard who claimed he worked with the IGP in Greater Accra Region as a police commander there and he also gave me how he knows the IGP. So I said fine. The second time he came and I listened to them.

He told me that he has got somebody who is more qualified and who is also a true party member and that man can take over from the IGP so he wants the person to come. I said alright, he can bring the person. The second time, he came to meet me, he came with the person and that is the person, CoP Mensah. I told CoP Mensah that I remember he has come to my office before and he said yes.

I then said, “but then I know you. When you were telling me you are somebody, I did not know it was you. That means you are really good”. I also listened to that man and that man also talked and in fact, I was scared if our Government and party should have an IGP who can hold a Meeting with Ex-President John Mahama and NDC, then we are in trouble. So, I listened to them and I said they would need to come back.

I was also consulting some other people on what I am hearing and what they have come to tell me. I even promised Commander Asare that if he would come himself, then I would go with him to the President so that I would sit down and he would talk directly to the President. He told me that that day he was travelling so he wanted a man named Gyebi who is also a police superintendent to come and join me.

He would equally say the thing that they know about the IGP. So, they called Gyebi on phone, he said a lot on phone and I told him that Sunday, 3.00, I am going to book an appointment and go with him to the President.

He said yes, he would be with me at that time. On the Sunday, I called Gyebi and asked him to meet me at the Afrikiko and I would drive with him to the President’s place. He said he was in the Eastern Region for a programme. I said, “Ah, but you said you were coming. You people came to my office for such an important thing and now that I am going with you to meet the President, you will not go?” I was so disappointed.

I decided that I need to get the information properly and the proper way was to look for a tape to tape all that we had been discussing so that I would know where to send it. So that when I send it to the President or anybody, they cannot deny or neither would somebody think that I am concocting stories. We chiefs do not like to lie. If I tell a lie, I will die. The truth of the story is that the tape is correct. The voices on it, I was there and they came to me.

On 10^th October, 2023, Chief Bugri Naabu tendered the second tape without objection and in responding to a question during his in-camera testimony on the same day regarding the allegations that the tapes were doctored or “cut and paste” Chief Bugri Naabu denied that the tapes been doctored and rather asserted that, nothing had been deleted from the audio tapes since they were one and continuous recording with the first one lasting 45 minutes and the second audio lasting one hour and fifty minutes .  He added that the first audio tape was integral to, and a continuation of the second audio tape, which was already in the public domain.

It is worth noting that the purpose of the discussion that ensued at the meetings he had with the above-mentioned high-ranking police personnel namely, COP Alex Mensah, Supt. George Lysander Asare and Supt. Emmanuel Gyebi, Chief Bugri Naabu asserted that their discussions focused on the possibility of him (Bugri Naabu) arranging a meeting with the President to be informed about alleged impediments posed by the continuous stay in office by the IGP, whom the high ranking police officers accused of being a member of the NDC by the virtue of being an Aide-de-Camp (ADC) to the late President, Professor John Atta-Mills, as well as his closeness to the former President, John Dramani Mahama.

According to Chief Bugri Naabu, Supt. George  Lysander Asare in particular admonished that, if the IGP was not removed from office, NPP would not be able to “break the 8”.  Again, according to Chief Bugri Naabu, the ultimate purpose of the meetings was to seek his (Bugri Naabu’s) intervention for the appointment of COP Alex Mensah to replace Dr. George Akuffo Dampare as IGP.

Concerned about the allegation, Chief Bugri Naabu said he had to contact some members of the Police Council and attempted to reach the Minister for the Interior, but to no avail.

 

6.10 Testimony of COP George Alex Mensah (2^nd witness)

COP Alex Mensah testified before the Committee on 31^st August, 2023, 1^st September, 2023 in public hearings, and on 13^th September, 2023, 10^th October 2023 respectively in in-camera hearings.  COP Alex Mensah’s testimony related to the following matters:

• Authentication of the leaked audio tapes (first and second audio tapes) and statements contained therein, which were attributed to him;
• Meetings he had jointly with Chief Bugri Naabu and Supt. Mr. George Lysander Asare purportedly aimed at conspiring to remove the IGP, and his desired appointment as IGP based on the attribution that the current IGP, is partisan and pro-NDC;
• Potential professional misconduct arising from COP Alex Mensah’s purported conspiracy to remove the IGP and lobbying to be appointed IGP based on his political affiliation as NPP sympathizer;
• Election security management, to wit, alleged statement attributed to COP Alex Mensah to the effect that elections are about “mafia work” or “tactics”, which entailed skewing election security management to enhance the electoral fortunes of his preferred political party, the NPP; and
• Allegation of administrative injustice/maladministration being perpetrated by the IGP, which has occasioned discrimination and favouritism in promotions at both junior and senior rank levels culminating in low morale and disenchantment with the rank and file of the GPS.
• Allegation of rift between the IGP and the military high command, which had marred police-military relations.

In his testimony regarding the authenticity of the leaked audio tapes on 31^st August, 2023 and 1^st September, 202, COP Alex Mensah, in relation to the first audio tape, admitted he heard partly his voice in the audio tape and some of the statements attributed to him.  However, he argued that, it (the first audio tape) was an edited version, which had been doctored because, according to him, there were so many things he said which were not captured in the audio tape.

As a result, the Committee gave him the opportunity to listen to the audio tape and its transcribed version to enable him verifies the statements that were attributed to him in the audio tape which were incorrect or untrue.  After listening to the audio tape and comparing it with the verbatim transcription, COP Alex Mensah confirmed portions of the audio tape which were attributed to him.

Regarding portions of the audio tape that was attributed to, but he believed were incorrect or untrue, he made reference to page 3, line 8 of the transcript, which read “I was doing that because we would go on retirement, maybe confident and to change power”.  He said he could not remember making such a statement during the meeting with Chief Bugri Naabu.  However, he was reminded by Hon Atta Akyea that, that statement was rather attributable to Chief Bugri Naabu.

Also, he said he could not remember the statement attributed to him at page 4, line 10 of the transcript, which read “…because I would not want doctor to become the flagbeaere and we lose elections…” Again, at this juncture, the Committee gave COP Alex Mensah the opportunity to study the transcribed version of the first audio tape (Exhibit…..) and delineate or mark all the statements that were attributed to him that were authentic for which he admits and mark them with the inscription “accept”.

After the exercise, COP Alex Mensah indicated that, the portions of the audio tape that he did not “accept” were rather very few so he, instead, marked those few portions as “not accepted”.  The corrected document authored by COP Alex Mensah was tendered by him and was marked Exhibit 1.

It is noteworthy to indicate that, in his oral testimony before the Committee, COP Alex Mensah made allegations against the IGP alleging administrative or corporate governance issues such as promotions, gagging of personnel of the Public Affairs Directorate (PAD), intimidation of police officers and alleged recording of the leaked audio tapes by ASP Kenneth Asante on the instructions of the IGP. Apart from his oral testimony, however, COP Alex Mensah could not produce any evidence to substantiate there allegations.

COP Alex Mensah stated further concerning the authenticity of the second audio tape and its contents during an in-camera hearing on 10^th October, 2023 that, he was not mentioned in the second tape.  Therefore, he said he would not be in a position to testify to its authentication.

Besides, COP Alex Mensah testified on 1^st September, 2023 that, one of the motivating factors for lobbying for the IGP position was because the current IGP has aversion to “party people” as he succinctly put it.

He stated thus:

Mr Opoku: Now, on the same page, COP Mensah, with the aid of your solicitors, you have accepted the statement that is attributed to you— the last statement down there, page 5, go to page 5, the last statement, you have accepted that one and that statement also reads, they thought because we were also fighting the position, that is why we are destroying him.

But when he started arresting party people, that is when they saw that hmmm we said we told you, but you did not listen. Sitting down, watching, you all watch and go to opposition. You have accepted this one as your statement, is that not correct.

Mr Mensah: Yes, I said it.

Mr Opoku: Is it an advice to the NPP?

Mr Mensah: I was advising Bugri Naabu.

Mr Opoku: “You all watch and go to opposition’’, was that being referred to Bugri Naabu alone or his party? Let us be candid.

Mr Mensah:Mr Chairman, I was talking to Bugri Naabu.

Mr Opoku: Then when you go up, the same page, Speaker 2 “Me di3, I have been NPP member since longtime and now you are saying that we should omit the NPP and insert — is it UP?

Mr Mensah:Mr Chairman, this issue came yesterday and I said the same thing that UP.

Mr Opoku: You admit the entire statement except the use of NPP. Is that correct? [interruption]

MrAgalga: Eric, let us refresh Commissioner’s memory. What you said yesterday, is on record. You said “you were born into the UP tradition’’ but that is different from what is captured here. So, what Hon Opoku wants you to do is to speak to what is captured on page 5.

You tried to make an insertion which suggests that we should substitute NPP with UP. That is very different from what you told the Committee yesterday about UP. You wanted the Committee to understand that you were born into the UP tradition and so by implication, you are a UP tradition member. But here you were very emphatic about NPP. So, you see the substitution would not work.

Mr Mensah:Mr Chairman, that is why I said that is not the only thing I wrote there. If you look, I said point remember, I do not remember making that statement.

Mr Opoku: Yesterday, this was the question I posed to you and I have your answer here. You have been an NPP member long time before you joined the Service. Is that correct? And this was your answer, Mr Chairman, my family has been with the UP tradition since I was born and we have remained there until now. That was the answer you gave yesterday.

Mr Mensah: Yes, Mr Chairman, and I would not run away from that. That is true.

Mr Opoku: That is right. So, on page 5, you are saying that you should remove NPP and insert UP and then again, you are saying you do not remember. Which one do you want us to take? You could have simply said, I do not remember making this statement. But you are also giving indication that you wanted us to remove NPP and insert UP. So, my understanding is that if we remove the NPP and put in UP, probably that would be your statement.

Mr Mensah:Mr Chairman, this script, we never knew that you were going to ask us to make something on it and bring it to you. Some of the things, I noted it before Mr Chairman said we should make —  this UP tradition that I put there, I put it there yesterday myself. It is not meant for — so please, take that one out.

MrAgalga: All he is trying to say is that he wrote certain things on the document at a time he did not know we would be asking him to give indication as to which portions of the transcripts he accepts or rejects, therefore, when he wrote UP, it was this note —

Mr Chairman: Please, your noes on the transcribed document are not what he is talking about. It is the verbatim reporting of what transpired yesterday and that is what he is making reference to not your noes, your handwritten that you said UP.

Mr Agyemang: The page Hon referred us to, that is page 5, there is an insertion here by him. That is what he referred us to.

Mr Opoku: We are still on page 5 of the verbatim reporting. The first statement, “he would not— look at this Assin North, he has picked every police officer to Assin North now including all the big men in Accra. They have all gone to Assin North. What are they going to do, so that we would help. Police me would be there, how do we, eiiii, we should not make that mistake at all”. This one you have by our arrangement; you have confirmed that this is your statement.

Mr Mensah: Yes, I said it.

Later on the same date, the witness stated further as follows;

MrAgalga: Thank you, sir. Now COP, you have stated in one of your charges against the IGP that he has been arresting party people. You have said this. Mr Mensah: Yes, I have said it.

MrAgalga: Which party people are those?

Mr Mensah: I was speaking to Bugri Naabu so I was referring to his party people. MrAgalga: Which party? 62 | Page Mr Menah: NPP. MrAgalga: Can you confirm to this Committee which party people have been arrested?

Mr Mensah:Mr Chairman, I never knew I was going to be asked this question but I can remember this one that the third vice chairman of the New Patriotic Party was arrested.

MrAgalga: Why was he arrested and what is his name?

Mr Mensah: I do not know his name. All I knew was that he was the third vice chairman of the NPP and he was arrested for a traffic offence.

MrAgalga: And is that an arrestable offence?

Mr Mensah: Yes, it is.

MrAgalga:So he was arrested because he jumped the red light or he committed a traffic offense and not because of his party affiliation. Is that correct.

Mr Mensah: I actually do not know the offence he has committed. If I tell you that I knew the offense he committed, I would not be speaking the truth.

MrAgalga: Commissioner, I thought you have just said that he was arrested for a traffic offence.

Mr Mensah: Yes, he was arrested for a traffic offence but we have several traffic offences so I do not know the specific traffic offence that he has committed but the information that we had was that he was arrested for a traffic offence. But the specific one, I do not know and I cannot sit here and lie.

MrAgalga:So you would agree with me that he was arrested not because of his party affiliation but because he has committed a traffic offence.

Mr Mensah: I do not think I have said he was arrested because of his party affiliation. I have not said so.

MrAgalga: Commissioner, you see, let us be forthright. This is a statement which is captured in the audio and it is attributable to you. You complained to Bugri Naabu that the IGP was arresting party people. Now I am asking you — you indicated in an answer to my question that a third party vice chairman was arrested and I am asking you whether he was arrested because he was a third vice chairman or he was arrested as a normal citizen who committed a traffic offence. That is the question.

Mr Mensah: I have answered the question. I said he was arrested for a traffic offence. That is what I have said.

In response to a question as to whether this statement which to him was advice to the NPP, COP Alex Mensah said that, it was advice meant for Chief Bugri Naabu.  Meanwhile, COP Alex Mensah in his testimony on the same date admitted that he was born into the UP tradition and had remained there until now.  Further, he admitted he is an NPP sympathizer, but not a card bearing member of NPP.

Concerning the allegation of removal of the current IGP because he is an NDC member, COP Alex Mensah in his testimony on 1^st September, 2023 denied making any statement to the effect that the current IGP is an NDC member, but admitted alleging that, the current IGP is an NDC sympathizer.  According to COP Alex Mensah, the attribution that IGP is an NDC sympathizer stemmed from the fact that, he was ADC to the former President, the late Professor John Evans Atta Mills, and had been removing that fact from his CV.

In addition, COP Alex Mensah testified that, the current IGP was promoted to the position of a Commissioner before him because his party [NDC] was in power; he further testified on 1^st September, 2023 that, “…because some of us who were seen as not members of the party were not promoted for almost nine years”.

In relation to the attribution of election security management skewed to favour the ruling party (NPP), COP Alex Mensah, in his testimony on 1^st September, 2023, confirmed the statement attributed in respect of elections being about mafia work and further explained as follows;

Mr Chairman: Please, my dear Colleague, read it to him again. Because what you read to him is now a challenge so be gracious enough to read the question from the Vice Chair, MrAgalga, and his response yesterday, and then you refresh his memory.

Mr Opoku: In fact, yesterday, Hon Agalga read a statement attributed to you from the audio in question and then — let me read exactly what he said, “Because I would not want Dr to become the flagbearer and then we lose elections’’ then he goes on, “gave you the position, break the eight, meanwhile this IGP is not correct, Alhaji you di3 you have done politics, you know elections is not just — sometimes elections, mafia work is in side ooo, Alhaji hmm, no ooo not at sometimes as for that one, then you said, I am just saying, then Alhaji comes in, mafia work is inside not sometimes. It is not sometimes, it is.

Then you said yes and this man sitting up there would not help out  party to do anything’’ and the question was, this is what Hon Agalga asked you yesterday. This is captured in the audio.

Do you agree to the fact that these statements, attributed to you are captured in the audio which was played to your hearing, Commissioner? And then you answered yes. I made it. And so, I wanted you to reconcile your answer to this question yesterday with answer you are giving today.

Mr Mensah:Mr Chairman, MrAgalga yesterday out of this portion did not ask just one question. He asked a question as to the mafia work and I agreed that yes, I said it and I explained that when it comes to mafia work, I was talking about if proper security is not provided at your stronghold, the opposition can come and cause a mess and people would not come to vote, and you are likely to lose the election. But when he went to where it is written that I said Dr, he said which Dr were you referring to, I said I do not remember saying that.

Mr Opoku:Mr Chairman, in that very statement, we are talking about a Dr and then you also said that this IGP is not correct. It is also in the same statement. And the mafia work is also in the same statement. So, when you look at the proceedings, Hon Agalga asked you this first question and then proceeded to ask you question about the mafia.

The responses are here. He then proceeded to ask you question about the issue about whether IGP is correct or not and you admitted that indeed the IGP is not correct. All these things are in this statement and then you said you made it and you explained. So, I am becoming confused that today, you sit before this Committee to deny knowledge of this statement, that is my worry.

Mr Mensah:Mr Chairman, the only part of the statement that I did not accept is about the Dr.

Mr Opoku: All right. So, you do not accept the Dr.

Mr Mensah: Yes, Mr Chairman.

Mr Opoku: That, you did not say Dr? Because the whole statement is being attributed to you. Are you saying to the Committee that you did not mention doctor there?

Mr Mensah: I said I do not remember saying that to Bugri Naabu.

Mr Opoku: All right. If I ask you — I am asking you now, this statement is on the audio and it is being attributed to you that you have made this statement, “because I would not want Dr to become the flagbearer and then we lose the elections, gave you the position, break the eight, meanwhile this IGP is not current. Alhaji, you di3 you have done politics, you know elections is not just— sometimes elections, mafia works is inside ooo”. Did you make this statement?

Mr Mensah:Mr Chairman, some portions of the statement, I did not, some I made. Mr Opoku: Can you repeat the statement.

Mr Mensah: I said some portions of the statements, I do not remember making but some portion.

Mr Opoku: Which are those portions; those you do not remember?

Mr Mensah: I do not remember mentioning the name of — because I would not want Dr to become flagbearer and we lose elections. I do not remember making that statement. But for the rest of it, I made it.

In the same vein, in his testimony on 1^st September, 2023, COP Alex Mensah confirmed a statement attributed to him alluding to the partisan nature of elect Read Full Story