The Ghana Police Service has challenged a recent Court of Appeal ruling that supported 40 Chief Inspectors who claimed they were unfairly denied promotion.
The Service has now taken the matter to the Supreme Court and wants the country’s highest court to overturn the Court of Appeal decision. It is also asking the court to restore the earlier High Court judgement.
In January 2026, the Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in favour of the officers. The court directed the Police Service to promote them and pay all financial benefits they would have received from the date their promotions should have taken effect.
The judges also ordered the Service to carry out the decision within six months.
In its appeal, the Police Service argued that the Court of Appeal wrongly ordered the Police Council, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Police Appointments and Promotions Advisory Board to promote the officers under the 2021 Amnesty Programme, which had already expired.
According to the Service, promotions for senior officers must strictly follow the rules in the Police Service Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 76). It believes the court should have directed the officers to follow those existing procedures instead.
The appeal further stated that the court treated the programme as though it automatically gave degree holders the right to promotion.
“The administrative benefit granted to junior ranks does not create a legal right in favour of the affected personnel for automatic promotion to the senior rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP).
“Such promotion is governed strictly by the criteria and requirements stipulated in C.I. 76,” the notice explained.
The Police Service also disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the Inspector-General of Police acted unfairly by not recommending the officers for promotion.
According to the appeal, the Court of Appeal itself admitted that the IGP cannot promote officers to the rank of ASP alone.
The process also requires approval from the Police Council and the Police Appointments and Promotions Advisory Board.
The Service argued that no officers in the same position as the affected Chief Inspectors received different treatment.
It explained that the officers who benefited from the amnesty programme held lower ranks and had not reached the Chief Inspector Maximum level.
Because of this, the Service believes the Court of Appeal made a legal mistake by ordering the promotion of the respondents and granting them backdated financial benefits.
The Police Service further argued that the court exceeded its authority by directing statutory bodies to use their discretionary powers in a specific way and within a fixed period.
According to the appeal, the ruling interfered with the legal system that governs promotions in the Police Service.
The Service said the judgement effectively removed the Police Council’s power to properly assess officers under C.I. 76.
It also claimed the court created a promotion route for senior officers that does not exist under the regulations.
