The Chief of Staff Directive of dismissing all public sector workers who were appointed after December 7, 2024, upon assuming office, has sparked legal debate, with former Attorney General Mr. Joseph Nii Ayikoi Otoo weighing in on its constitutional validity, he criticized the termination of these appointments by the current government.
He emphasized that any appointments made within this period remain legally binding unless proven otherwise.
“The government was elected for four years. It will lose its authority only after midnight of the 6th entering to the 7th January 2025. So, it can do anything until that day. When the new president is sworn in, then its powers are gone.”
Mr. Joseph Nii Ayikoi Otoo Former Attorney General
According to Mr. Mr. Ayikoi Otoo, dismissing workers appointed during this period without cause would be unconstitutional.
“Until a new president is sworn in, I do not see any law which is mightier than the constitution. Because it is a constitution which is the fundamental law which we have to obey.”
Mr. Joseph Nii Ayikoi Otoo Former Attorney General
This implies that appointments made before the transfer of power remain valid unless there is legal justification to revoke them.
The Ghanaian Constitution provided safeguards to ensure that public servants are not arbitrarily dismissed. Mr. Ayikoi Otoo referenced Article 191, which explicitly states that public sector employees cannot be dismissed, reduced in rank, or otherwise punished without just cause.
The inclusion of this provision in the Constitution ensures that employees maintain job security and are not subjected to political purges when a new government assumes power. Mr. Ayikoi Otoo further emphasized that dismissals must align with constitutional guidelines and cannot be based solely on political transitions.
Challenges in Implementing Mass Dismissals
Mr. Ayikoi Otoo highlighted the significant legal and administrative hurdles in implementing the proposed dismissals. He asserted that the burden of proof will be on the new government to demonstrate that each dismissed employee was unlawfully appointed.
The scale of this process makes it both legally and logistically complex. If employees can provide documentation proving that their appointments were lawful, the government may struggle to justify the mass dismissals.
“You have to contend with Article 191, which protects employees from unjust dismissal. That means every case will have to be individually examined, which will be an uphill battle.”
Mr. Joseph Nii Ayikoi Otoo Former Attorney General
The directive from the government is reportedly grounded in principles of “good governance” rather than constitutional provisions.
“Well, this stands against the Constitution. What’s the Constitution? Is that not what we are bound by, or are we bound by his [Chief of Staff] own whims and caprices? Instead of looking at just cause to say that there is no just cause, they are talking about good governance. Is that what the Constitution says? Is that a criterion for removing and dismissing people?”
Mr. Joseph Nii Ayikoi Otoo Former Attorney General
The implication is that an incoming government must follow due process and cannot make employment decisions solely based on governance principles.
If the government proceeds with its proposed dismissals without proper legal backing, affected employees may challenge the decision in court. Mr. Ayikoi Otoo suggested that the government would likely face a series of legal battles, which could undermine its ability to implement the directive.
He suggested that any wrongful dismissals could result in reinstatements or legal penalties for the government. The courts would likely uphold the constitutional protections granted to public servants.
Mr. Joseph Nii Ayikoi Otoo’s legal analysis raised fundamental questions about government proposed dismissal of public sector workers. He underscores that any attempt to remove employees must be based on constitutional grounds and justified with concrete evidence. The argument that “good governance” principles warrant mass dismissals is legally tenuous and likely to face legal challenges.
If the current goverment intends to proceed with dismissals, it must navigate constitutional hurdles and establish clear legal justification for each case. Without such justification, the dismissals could be deemed unconstitutional, leading to potential legal consequences for the new administration.
