14 did not go down well with him. He later devised insubordination case against Mr. Tayyib Bah (The Applicant). The said matter coupled with unproven allegation of his link with the RUF Rebels in respect of which he was neither given the opportunity to defend himself nor was investigation conducted as required in all allegations (emphasis ours), led to his immediate dismissal. His appeal against the said dismissal to the Police Council for a review of the case was not countenanced by them” An analysis of Annexure A suggests and rightly too, that the then Inspector General of Police of the Defendant concocted a discussion in which the Applicant made frank contributions. He used it as a ruse, a basis for the dismissal of the Applicant. It appears that the said Mr. Nicol (an agent of the Defendant) was the prosecutor and the Judge at the same time. The rudiments of fairness and justice frowns upon such procedure and as well as such high handedness. Granted that the Applicant was queried with regard to the purported acts of insubordination which he answered to, the reasoning of the Court is supported by the findings of fact contained in Annexure A to the effect that: 1- That a frank discussion between Mr. Tayyib Bah and late Mr. Walter Nicol was exploited by the latter, as subordination (insubordination) of the former. 2- That Mr. Tayyib Bah was queried for insubordination which he accordingly responded to, and such offence by all standards does not carry dismissal as a punishment. The Court agrees with conclusion arrived at by the investigating authority in Annexure A and holds that the dismissal of the Applicant was a premeditated decision by the agents of the Defendant devoid of any procedure or hearing. The offence or charge which attracts summary dismissal in law must be serious, cogent and proven. A concocted allegation based on a premeditated decision, catalyzed by bad faith and without any known procedure cannot qualify as fair.