Economic rights of sacked govt workers violated

A Private Member’s Motion filed by the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin and admitted by Speaker Alban Bagbin makes strong arguments against mass dismissal of public sector workers.
The motion, which described the government’s action as unconstitutional and unjustified, insists that the dismissals violate good governance principles and infringe upon citizens’ rights.
Despite the strength of the arguments contained in the motion, First Deputy Speaker Bernard Ahiafor prevented Afenyo-Markin from presenting it on the floor of Parliament, citing an ongoing court case as the reason.
The directive leading to the dismissals, issued by the Chief of Staff, Julius Debrah, in a letter dated February 10, 2025, has been widely condemned by Ghanaians as a violation of the economic rights of citizens enshrined in Article 24 of the 1992 Constitution.
Afenyo-Markin argued that the affected public servants were lawfully recruited under the administration of former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and that their appointments followed all legal and administrative procedures.
He emphasized that Article 195(1) of the Constitution explicitly vests the power of appointment in the President, which may be delegated to Governing Councils or Public Officers under Article 195(2).
Therefore, any revocation of these appointments is unconstitutional.

Presidential term and legal validity of appointments
Afenyo-Markin further highlighted that a President’s tenure is clearly stipulated in Article 66(1) of the Constitution, which grants a full four-year term.
In the case of President Akufo-Addo, his mandate was set to expire on January 6, 2025, and the election held on December 7, 2024, did not in any way nullify his authority to make appointments before the end of his tenure.
The Minority Leader pointed out that the directive by the Chief of Staff suggests that the Executive authority of the President was nullified immediately after the elections—a claim that has no constitutional basis.
He cited Article 66(3)(b), which states that a President’s term can only be prematurely ended through death, resignation, or impeachment under Article 69.
Since none of these conditions applied before January 7, 2025, all appointments made before that date remain valid and binding.

Precedents of post-election appointments

To reinforce his argument, Afenyo-Markin referenced past instances where appointments were made after elections but before the swearing-in of a new President.
In December 2016, then-President John Dramani Mahama appointed Mr. Daniel Domelovo as Auditor-General, Madam Josephine Nkrumah as Chairperson of the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE), and Mr. Joseph Whittal as the boss of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ).
He said all these appointments were made legally and were not revoked by the incoming government.
Additionally, he noted that even constitutional amendments have been enacted after elections but before the new President assumed office.
For instance, the first major amendment to the 1992 Constitution was signed into law on December 31, 1996, by the then-President after the conduct of the elections that year.

Violation of public servants’ rights
Afenyo-Markin strongly asserted that the dismissed public servants had undergone all legal recruitment processes and, as such, were entitled to security of tenure under Article 191(b) of the Constitution.
He questioned the rationale behind their dismissal, arguing that no just cause had been stated in their termination letters.
Initially, the government suggested that their recruitment was not in line with good governance.
However, Afenyo-Markin dismissed this claim as a weak justification, stating that “good governance” is not a recognized legal basis for revoking lawful appointments.
He also refuted the argument that the government lacked the financial capacity to maintain these employees, pointing out the glaring contradiction of new recruitments being planned under the government’s 24-hour economy initiative.

Political motives behind dismissals
The Minority Leader accused the government of engaging in a politically motivated purge of the public sector, aimed at creating vacancies for party loyalists.
He questioned the fairness of dismissing legally employed citizens while simultaneously advocating for an expanded workforce under the 24-hour economy plan.
He further argued that these dismissals directly violate the principles of equality before the law, non-discrimination, and fairness as outlined in Articles 12(2), 17(3), and 35(5) of the Constitution.
Afenyo-Markin also pointed to the Presidential Oath, which obliges the President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
He accused the President of violating this solemn pledge by endorsing actions that undermine the Constitution.

Legal and security implications of mass dismissals

Beyond the legal implications, Afenyo-Markin warned of the dire economic and security consequences of these mass dismissals. Ghana’s unemployment rate remains a critical issue, and the government is the largest employer.
Removing these workers without just cause, he argued, would worsen the unemployment crisis and inflict severe economic hardship on affected individuals and their families.
He further cautioned that the dismissals pose a security risk, as economic instability often leads to social unrest.
He urged the House to consider the broader implications of these dismissals and called for their immediate reversal.

Call for parliamentary resolution
Afenyo-Markin urged Parliament to take a stand beyond partisan considerations and prioritize the interests of the Ghanaian people.
He called on the House to resolve that the directive from the Chief of Staff was unconstitutional, inconsistent with good governance, and should be reversed immediately.
“This House must rise above political convenience and uphold the Constitution. If we allow this act of impunity to stand, we set a dangerous precedent for future governments to dismiss public servants at will, purely for political reasons. This is not governance; this is political retribution,” Afenyo-Markin declared.