Why Does The Law Prevent The Security Services From Going On Demonstrations And Strikes? Discussing The Authority Of The Law

All the labour laws in Ghana forbid the security services particularly the police, the military and the prisons for using strikes and demonstrations to register their displeasures in addressing labour grievances. The labour Act 651 is crystal clear on that.

Any of such actions is termed as mutiny and a threat to national security and must be brought under control as quickly as possible because it can lead to civil unrest. It is on record all over the world, in places that the security personnel used violence means to address their grievances led to cases of excess forces where in some cases government were toppled.

Those governments that learned their lessons have since prioritised the needs of their security personnel to avoid possible instances of mutinies. We must also learn from from them.

I don’t really know whether mutiny is a substantive criminal offence currently in Ghana since section 187 of Act 29/60 describes abetment of mutinous act by people who are not subject to military laws but not military officers themselves. In some countries, the punishment for mutiny is death. In Nigeria, very recently and during the insurgence of Boko Haram, 12 soldiers who became known as Miaduguri 12 were convicted to death after they were proven guilty by a court to have mutinied. In Britain, it was until 1998 that death penalty for mutiny was abolished. There are several examples of them and tells how mutiny is grievous.

What our laws are not really clear on, is whether mutinous act can be treated as just administrative disciplinary measures in the military and other security services or a criminal offence triable by a court of competent jurisdiction. I am still researching on it so I will not conclude for now .

During the military administrations, the court of marshals had the power to pronounce death sentences on mutinous soldiers after proven guilty but in present day Ghana, it is only a court of competent jurisdiction that can pronounce a death sentence on a person. Even if mutiny is a criminal offence with death penalty, it must be exercised under a court of competent jurisdiction.

The reason why these security services are barred from going on demonstrations and strikes is due to the fact that these are arm wielding institutions and considering the fact also that our beloved country Ghana had come out from successive military cum police coups not too long ago. The country is recuperating and still counting some of the losses that came with coups. It is therefore expected that that the needs of these security services be properly met in order not to destabilise the peace and stability of this country in their attempts to press for better conditions of services.

All the security services are classified as essential service providers. Here, one can conclude that, it is the services being rendered by these security personnel that are essential but not the security personnel and their welfare per se. It is what they do that matters but not who does what. No one wants to discuss the topic of security services embarking on demonstrations and strikes as an alternative means of addressing labour disputes but the fact is that have we as a country and people prioritised the needs of our security personnel as far as their welfare is concerned? Have adhered to the tenets of the constitution on how our security personnel should be equipped and maintained?

The laws again forbid these security services from forming unions which can make them have a united front to press for better conditions of services. In the landmark case of CEPS vrs National Labour Commission, the Justices of the Supreme Court in a majority decision of two-three ruled that CEPS has the mandate to form or join trade union of its choice due to the function they perform which is largely tax collection. Per the same ruling, our Justices set the terms categorically clear that the police, military and prisons cannot form or join trade unions also due to the functions they perform.

How then did the law framers expect the grievances of members of these security services to be address collectively since methods or channels of addressing grievances laid down in these services are designed for individuals? No group of security services members can come together and call for their grievances to be addressed as we have been seeing by the members of organized labours and other unions.

What must they do then?
In the spirit of good fate, the law entrusted the welfare of these securities service in the hands of their administrative heads and the government. The law is very instructive on how the needs of these securities services should be prioritised to avoid incidence of mutiny. Article 200 (3 ) for instance is very instructive on how the police should be equipped and maintain to maintain law and order by imploring the use of authoritative modal verb "SHALL " which is binding and very obligatory.

As to whether the government and the various administrative heads of the security services are committed to the welfare of our security personnel is something else despite their pronounced commitment to the welfare of our security personnel. What the IGPs, CDS, Director General of Prisons and others should know and be constantly reminded of is to prioritise the needs of their personnel first before any other thing. There is seem to abuse the laws that prevent security officers not to go on strikes. The best they can at times tell you is "KEEP QUIET AND SUFFER".

It was widely believed and said that during the term of Paapa J as the president of the Republic, he asked an IGP that what does he think can be done to improve the working conditions of the police personnel at the time? The IGP interestingly answered Paapa J and said "my boys are ok. They need nothing ". In fact the president was surprise to hear the IGP telling him that his boys are ok despite plethora of challenges confronting the service at the time.

Provision of descent accommodation, uniforms and booths as well as accoutrements for security services behoves on the heads of these security services. It is their duty that security personnel are well protected, maintained and equipped before performing any statutory duty.

Since members of these security services are not allowed by law to demonstrate or go on strikes, our collective bargaining power have been vested into the hands of heads of our security services to dialogue with government to ensure that our welfare needs are prioritised all the times but if you have an IGP who can tell the president that "my boys are ok" because he is ok, then one day we are likely to have members of security services using other unconstitutional means to address their concerns as it is currently happening in Cote Dvoire . Especially when some of us are being killed by armed robbers because we are not properly protected.

I am very sure in Cote Dvoire, there is equally laws preventing soldiers from mutinying with the hope that their welfare needs will be addressed but after they realized that the laws are disappointing them, they have devised other means to address their concerns which is raising eye brows. Laws are mere letters written down until human beings act on them. Those in authority must live according their mandates particularly our heads of security services.

We in the police have the C.I 76 otherwise known as Police Service Regulations 2012 which has been enacted to regulate the conduct of police officers as well as our welfare prescriptions. The C.I 76 was rushed through and passed because it protect the interest of few who are pending retirement leaving young ones like us who have some 30 years more to serve after serving some 8 years already. All the allowances listed in the C.I 76 which are supposed to bring financial reliefs to the ordinary police are inconsistent with Fair Wages and Salary Commission policies on salaries and allowances. Now it is a big problem to have the C.I. 76 fully implemented but interestingly, the punitive aspects are being enforced to letter.

The law didn’t forbid members of the security services not employ demonstrations and strikes to address their concerns to enslave them. No !. The law believes that the needs of our security personnel will be prioritised. The problem is the people who are supposed to take care of our welfare as security personnel. They are hiding behind the screens that security officers are not supposed to demonstrate or go on strikes but the question is, what would make properly trained security officers in Cote D'Ivoire go on demonstrations. May be we should conclude that situations in Cote Dvoire are different from Ghana.

For us in the police service, the constitution is very instructive on it that, the police service SHALL be equipped and maintained to to perform its traditional role of maintaining law and order. That is what the law says and what the constitution says is authoritative and binding.

Take note of the the modal verb "SHALL ". It is instrctive, authoritative, commanding, binding and very obligatory.

The law assumes our needs and conditions of services will be prioritised by the government and our administrative heads that is why we our not allowed not go on demonstrations and strikes. If there is a problem, it is not the law but rather those who have been entrusted by the law to cater for our needs who seem to be very disappointing.

Ahanta Apemenyimheneba Kwofie III [email protected]

#Ahantasdiarries_24_02_17
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.