88 drag Security Capo, A-G to court

Friday, October 28, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

EIGHTY-EIGHT former operatives of the National Security Council have dragged the National Security Co-ordinator and the Attorney-General to court over non-payment of their end-of-service benefits.
According to the plaintiffs, who served during the previous administration, their appointments were terminated because they were perceived to be political appointees.
However, the defendants have stated that the appointment of the plaintiffs were terminated because their services were no longer required and not because they were perceived as political appointees of the previous administration.
In a writ of summons accompanying the statement of claim, the plaintiffs are praying the High Court to declare that they (plaintiffs) were entitled to be paid their end-of-service benefits upon the termination of their appointment in consonance with conditions governing their employment.
The writ of summons, titled Kenneth Gyan Kesse and 87 others versus the National Security Co-ordinator and the Attorney-General, is also praying the court to order the defendants to pay the plaintiffs their end-of-service benefits.
The statement said all the plaintiffs were Ghanaian citizens and were fully employed as regular staff of the National Security Council Secretariat in Accra and across the country.
It said all the plaintiffs were interviewed, examined and employed under the Securities and Intelligence Agencies Law of 1996.
It further stated that following the 2008 general election, which led to a change in the political administration of the country, their appointments were subsequently terminated and in partial fulfilment of the conditions governing the termination of appointment, each of them was paid three months' salary.
According to the statement of claim, the plaintiffs petitioned the National Security Co-ordinator for the payment of their end-of-service benefits but the petition was ignored.
It said they then, through their solicitors, wrote letters claiming the payment of their end-of-service benefits but those letters also yielded no results.
It claimed it was obvious that until the court intervened, the defendants had no intention to meet their demands.
The defendants admitted that the plaintiffs were paid three months' salary in lieu of notice of termination, adding that the said amount represented the full payment due plaintiffs in case of disengagement between NSC and the plaintiffs.
They said the plaintiffs were not entitled to any end-of-service benefits as alleged to be in their conditions of service.
The statement of defence further pointed out that the National Security Co-ordinator was not the proper person to be sued in this matter.
The defendants said they would, at the hearing, raise a preliminary-legal point that the National Security Co-ordinator was not the proper person or body to be sued in this matter and would pray that the National Security Co-ordinator’s name should be struck off the writ.