The decision by the Inspector-General of Police to recognise and promote the Special Female Police Unit associated with the Asantehene is lawful, defensible, and firmly within Ghana’s constitutional order. Claims that it “tribalises” the Ghana Police Service do not survive serious legal or institutional scrutiny.
First, no police unit has been transferred, subordinated, or pledged to any traditional authority. The unit remains fully under the command structure of the Ghana Police Service, answers exclusively to the IGP, and operates within the Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350), and Police Service Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 76). There is no evidence of divided loyalty, altered command, or operational autonomy outside the Service. That fact alone defeats the argument of institutional capture.
The Constitution does not prohibit ceremonial or honorary association between state institutions and traditional authorities. Article 270 recognises chieftaincy as part of Ghana’s constitutional architecture. The State routinely provides security to traditional leaders, presidents, judges, and visiting dignitaries without compromising neutrality. Assigning a specialised unit to ceremonial duties does not convert the police into a tribal force. What matters constitutionally is control, not symbolism.
Article 200 establishes a national Police Service, but nowhere does it ban symbolic naming, ceremonial roles, or public recognition linked to national heritage. Article 35(5) guards against discrimination and exclusion. It does not forbid the State from acknowledging institutions of historic and national significance, particularly when such acknowledgement does not confer advantage, restrict access, or alter recruitment and promotion rules.
On the issue of promotions, the law is even clearer. Promotions within the Ghana Police Service are based on service, conduct, and merit, exercised under the authority of the Police Council and the IGP. The officers promoted were not elevated because of ethnicity but because of duty performed, discipline, and role executed. There is no evidence that officers from other regions or ethnic groups are barred from the unit or disadvantaged by its existence. That makes the discrimination argument legally hollow.
The so-called “floodgate” claim also collapses under scrutiny. Administrative law recognises precedent only where similar legal facts exist. Traditional authorities do not occupy identical constitutional, historical, or security roles. The Asantehene is not merely a local chief but a nationally recognised cultural authority with longstanding ceremonial state interactions, including presidential events and national observances. Equal treatment does not mean identical treatment where circumstances differ.
International law supports this position. The ICCPR requires equal access to public service, not uniform symbolism. The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials focuses on behaviour, impartiality, and obedience to law, not ceremonial naming. No international instrument prohibits a police unit from having an honorary designation linked to national heritage, provided operational neutrality is preserved.
Crucially, the fear of “dual loyalty” is speculative. Loyalty in law enforcement is defined by command authority, not ceremonial association. The officers involved took the same oath as every other police officer, wear the same uniform, and are bound by the same disciplinary code. There is no legal pathway by which a traditional ruler can issue orders to the unit. That is the firewall the Constitution already provides.
Ghana’s stability has always rested on a balanced coexistence between modern state institutions and traditional authority, not their forced separation. The police have guarded chiefs, churches, mosques, courts, and political rallies for decades without losing national character. Recognising service rendered in a historic national context does not weaken the Police Service. It strengthens morale, rewards professionalism, and reinforces respect for lawful authority.
The real danger lies not in symbolic recognition but in mischaracterising lawful decisions as ethnic threats, thereby injecting unnecessary tension into national discourse.
On the law, on precedent, and on institutional practice, the IGP’s decision stands firm.
By: Charles McCarthy@mccarthy4uall@gmail.com
