I want to make this absolutely clear: the President has acted within the full limits of the Constitution regarding the granting of a two-year contract to IGP Christian Tetteh Yohuno.
There is no breach, no illegality, and no disregard for due process. The confusion being circulated is based on poor understanding of the law and how security administration works.
1. No Constitutional Violation
The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to appoint, maintain, or extend the service of security heads. This includes the IGP. The Constitution grants him this discretion because national security demands stability, continuity, and trust.
We have seen this before. A former IGP received an extension beyond retirement age because the government at the time believed it was necessary. There was no outcry then, and the same principles apply now.
So, the claim of constitutional violation is baseless.
2. Misinterpretation of the “Suspension” Letter
A letter from the Presidency, written partly in the local dialect commonly called “Asperbanker,” speaks of a suspension of the special grant/apprenticeship arrangement for officers approaching 60. The public must understand the language:
- Suspension does NOT mean cancellation.
- It simply pauses the process.
- If the policy were meant to be scrapped entirely, the word would have been “revoked.”
Therefore, using this letter to suggest that the IGP cannot continue is a misunderstanding. The letter does not eliminate the pathway for extensions; it only pauses a specific internal process.
3. Security Considerations Are Paramount
We are dealing with a sensitive security environment—political tension, crime, and general instability. In such a climate, the President must rely on people he trusts.
The IGP plays a critical role in intelligence, public order, and the general safety of the state. If the President believes retaining the IGP ensures stability, he is right to do so. This is not politics—this is national security.
4. No Illegal Action
Let me repeat: nothing illegal has happened.
- The Constitution supports the President’s decision.
- Precedent supports it.
- National security considerations justify it.
The noise surrounding this matter is unnecessary and stems from a lack of understanding of governance.
Conclusion
In simple, direct terms:
The President has not breached the Constitution.
The issue of “suspension” is being misinterpreted.
And the decision to retain the IGP is well within his lawful authority as Commander-in-Chief.
By Dr. Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe
