Businesswoman and gender activist, Henrietta Nana Yaa Simpson, has filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of Commissioner of Police (Rtd.) Nathan Kofi Boakye, to the Ghana Police Council.
The writ says the appointment is unconstitutional, indicating that the position is designated for a representative of the National Association of Retired Police Officers (NARPO), making the appointment a violation of both the 1992 Constitution and the Police Service Act.
She says President Mahama unilaterally appointed Kofi Boakye to the 10-member Council which the constitution says should include one representative from NARPO, without consulting the Association or accepting its nominee.
Madam Simpson explains the rep should have been the elected president of NARPO, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Rtd.) Florence Arthur, the first woman to be elected NARPO president and not Kofi Boakye.
The Monday, June 23, 2025 suit names Kofi Boakye, the Police Council and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice as the first, second and third respondents respectively.
It invokes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2, 130, 17(1), 201, and 296 of the 1992 Constitution and Rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules (C.I. 16).
The declarations being sought in the suit includes:
- That the appointment of Mr. Boakye is unconstitutional, null, and void.
- That only the National Association of Retired Police Officers has the authority to nominate its representative to the Police Council.
- That ACP (Rtd.) Florence Arthur, being the legitimate nominee, qualifies under the law to serve on the Council.
- That the President’s refusal to acknowledge the association’s nominee constitutes a breach of Article 201(f).
- That the exclusion of ACP (Rtd.) Arthur on account of her rank and gender amounts to discrimination.
Additionally, the writ is demanding the removal of Kofi Boakye from the Council to be replaced by ACP (Rtd.) Arthur.
The suit further indicate that the conduct of the Presidency undermines institutional autonomy, established convention, and constitutional provisions regarding appointments, and that it risks setting a precedent for gender bias in high-level appointments.
