Inspector General of Police David Asante Appeatu has escaped a possible jail time or imposition of a fine, as the Attorney-General has appealed a court decision that found him guilty of contempt.
Deputy Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, on Thursday succeeded in preventing an Accra High Court from sentencing the IGP.
READ ALSO: Doctors leave cotton in woman’s belly after operation
He has filed three applications all geared at ensuring that Mr Appeatu is not handed a jail time or fined.
Justice Daniel Mensah had earlier ruled that the IGP was guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying orders to provide security for the execution of a court order, for the sale of a 12-block flats belonging to two citizens, Samuel Aggrey Jnr and Augustine Gyekye.
Mr. Dame informed the court they had filed an application for suspension of execution and a notice of appeal.
A third application by the state is aimed at laying claims of ownership of the property for the Ghana Police Service.
Mr Dame also apologised to the court for the failure of the Inspector General of Police to make it to court.
Background
READ ALSO: Anas wades into Shatta Wale’s beef with other artistes
This case has travelled from 1988 Â when a woman, Mrs Aggrey (now deceased), filed the case against REDCO Company limited.
She said the company had failed to pay an amount of money owed her. She won the case as the court in the judgment attached the property, 12-block flat at Madina in Accra.
That is to say that if REDCO fails to pay the money the court will sell the property in order to retrieve the money for her.
REDCO appealed this decision but lost. But even before the court ruled on the matter REDCO gave out the property to the Ghana Police Service to house some of its officers.
But the police according to the documents available to Joy News, failed to do that, instead claimed ownership of the property.
READ ALSO: President to receive report on KNUST disturbances
The lawyers then filed another case citing the IGP for contempt. They argue that once the flat is in the custody of the court, it is illegal for anyone to sell or buy the property and that the police should have done due diligence.
They also argued, the police has failed to perform its statutory duty and for that matter have willfully disobeyed the orders of the court to provide security for the execution of the court order.
“It is my humble opinion that the defence offered by the respondent after the applicant has successfully proved his case, is not legally tenable and the respondent has therefore failed to fully discharge the burden required to avoid a conviction and must, therefore, be committed for contempt of court and sanctioned accordingly.’’