Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Soldier Sues GAF


By William Yaw Owusu

Tuesday, 23 October 2007
AN Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday dismissed an application for bail, filed by Squadron Leader John Harrison Indome, who is battling the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF), for his voluntary release from the military.

The plaintiff, a pilot, filed the suit against the Attorney–General for an order to direct the GAF to release him voluntarily from the military.

The court, presided over by Justice K.K. Acquaye, did not grant the application because Sqd. Leader Indome was already in "open custody" according to the military authorities when he appeared before the court

In military parlance, open custody is where a soldier who is facing disciplinary action is allowed to move about but is expected to file reports of his whereabouts.

The court further added that he is still in active service in the GAF and had been treated according to military law.

The court said his admission that he is free to move about made the request for bail "unnecessary and misconceived".

Sqd Leader Indome was commissioned as a regular officer and applied for voluntary release last year, citing his right to be released.

While his application was being considered, he allegedly applied for, and obtained employment with the Ghana International Airlines as a civilian pilot.

He then allegedly packed his belongings out of the military accommodation without notice to his superiors and travelled abroad.

After all attempts to trace him failed, the Military Command declared him ‘AWOL’, a military acronym for leaving without permission, which is a criminal offence under the Armed Forces Act 1962 and Armed Disciplinary Regulations C.I.12.

In their affidavit in opposition to his application the GAF said that prior to his disappearance without leave, Sqd. Leader Indome exhibited gross indiscipline, refused to take orders from his superiors and also did not take flight orders.

The GAF said they investigated and charged him and are currently holding him in open custody, pending his appearance before an Armed Forces General Court Marshall.

When he commenced the civil action at the high court, Sqd. Leader Indome contended that he is entitled to his release as of right and, therefore, his disappearance without leave was justified.

He further contended that his "detention" in custody by the GAF is unlawful since it is not sanctioned by law."

On October 18, when the application was to be moved, the court ordered the Chief of Air Staff, Air Vice Marshall Julius Otchere Boateng, to personally produce Sqd. Leader Indome and to appear before the court to explain the basis of the plaintiff’s detention by the GAF.

Air-Vice Marshall Boateng duly appeared before the court yesterday, and an affidavit in opposition filed by the AG notified the court that Sqd. Leader Indome had already been processed for appearance before a court Marshall in strict compliance with the Armed Forces Act and the Armed Forces disciplinary regulations.

Moving the application for bail, Mr. Tony Lithur, counsel for Sqd Leader Indome said the applicant had applied for voluntary release after 10 years of military service and qualified for it under Article 15 (2) (1) of the constitution.

He said although his client was not in detention, the conditions attached to the open custody policy were very restrictive and did not allow his client free movement.

"There is escort around him all the time. The terms should be reviewed because his is not an "absconding risk."

But Colonel Iddrisu Mahama, who represented the GAF, argued that the conversion of the plaintiff’s status from close custody to open custody was essentially an admission of the plaintiff to bail in military palance.

Ms. Gifty Ofei Sakyibea, Assistant State Attorney who represented the Attorney-General, said to the extent that the plaintiff was a commissioned officer, his recourse lies within military law and therefore he is not entitled in the circumstances of this case, to seek the intervention of the high court, especially when he had not exhausted the grievance redress procedure prescribed under military law.

No comments: