In her brief, Fatty’s lawyer Kaddijatou Jallow said the facts are straightforward. She argued that Fatty, after petitioning against superiors, was excluded from a disciplinary process “shaped by the testimony and recommendations of the very persons he had complained against, supported by no credible evidence.”
“Every ingredient of a lawful disciplinary process was absent. Every rule of natural justice was violated,” Counsel Jallow submitted. She added that the state’s own witness confirmed material facts supporting Fatty’s case, and the Court disallowed the state’s re-examination questions.
“The rule of law means nothing if a public institution can dismiss a senior officer on unverified suspicion, exclude him from the process, and entrust that process to his accusers,” she told the High Court. Jallow asked Justice Sarah Aryee to declare the termination void, order reinstatement, and award entitlements and damages. She said the outcome would affirm that “public power must be exercised according to law.”
Director of Civil Litigation J.O. Okete argued that under Sections 172 and 174(1) of the 1997 Constitution, the PSC has exclusive jurisdiction over senior police officers. He said Fatty, as a Deputy Commissioner, falls squarely within that category and that the PSC acted within its constitutional mandate.
“The Defendants respectfully submit that the Plaintiff's case is wholly devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed in its entirety,” Okete submitted, adding that Fatty failed to discharge the burden of proof under the Evidence Act.
Replying, Jallow said Fatty does not dispute PSC jurisdiction in principle. “Our case is that the PSC exercised whatever jurisdiction it possessed in a manner that was fundamentally unlawful, procedurally void, and contrary to the Constitution, Public Service Act, PSC Regulations 2013, and General Orders,” she argued, citing Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission.
Justice Aryee then adjourned the matter to 1st December 2026 for judgment.
