Bold claim: a university’s own process failed the fairness test. The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has overturned a directive from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) Vice-Chancellor demanding that a senior lecturer apologize to two colleagues, ruling that the directive violated the rules of natural justice.
Key facts from court documents obtained by GhanaWeb show that a three-judge panel — Justice K. Baiden (presiding), Justice Richard Mac Kogyapwah, and Justice John Bosco Nabareseset — unanimously allowed Prof Rexford Assasie Oppong’s appeal against the university’s Registrar, and set aside a prior High Court decision that had dismissed his judicial review application.
Timeline and background: In March 2023, KNUST Vice-Chancellor Prof Rita Akosua Dickson established a fact-finding committee chaired by Prof Samuel I.K. Ampadu to examine a petition from senior members of the Department of Architecture. The petition accused Prof Oppong (then Head of Department) of harassment, intimidation of staff, making unilateral decisions without the departmental board, flouting graduate studies regulations, and disrupting mid-semester examinations.
In turn, Prof Oppong accused two colleagues, Prof Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr Alexander Boakye Marful, of insubordination and soliciting money from students to arrange additional classes. The Ampadu Committee was tasked with investigating both sides and to recommend actions to the Vice-Chancellor.
Oppong appeared before the committee, providing oral and documentary evidence, but later complained that he was not granted cross-examination of his accusers.
By August 2024, the university Registrar wrote to Prof Oppong with directives from the Vice-Chancellor based on the committee’s findings, which concluded that the allegations against the two lecturers were untrue and had harmed their reputations. Subsequently, the Vice-Chancellor ordered Oppong to apologize to the two colleagues.
Oppong challenged the directive, contending that although the committee was labeled a fact-finding body, enforcing its findings as a disciplinary sanction required standard disciplinary procedures. He also argued that the committee was not recognized under the university statutes as a disciplinary body and that his right of appeal had been curtailed.
The Court of Appeal agreed that while the Vice-Chancellor had administrative authority to establish a fact-finding body and adopt its recommendations, turning those recommendations into disciplinary action required due process. Justice Baiden, delivering the lead judgment, stated that directing Oppong to apologise was not a minor step but could be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing. Therefore, due process and fair hearing procedures akin to disciplinary proceedings should have been followed before such an order could be enforced.
The court described the failure to follow due process as a “fatal omission.” Although certiorari is a discretionary remedy, the Court of Appeal found the circumstances warranted intervention to prevent potential escalation and disruption of academic peace within the university. As a result, the Registrar’s August 13, 2024 letter directing Oppong to apologise was quashed.
Consequently, the High Court judgment from January 15, 2024, was set aside, and no order on costs was issued.
This ruling underscores a central point: even when a university embarks on fact-finding to resolve internal disputes, converting those findings into punitive measures must follow formal disciplinary procedures and provide adequate notice and a fair hearing to the involved parties. This decision may spark debate about how institutions balance accountability with due process in internal investigations.
What do you think about the court’s ruling? Should universities treat all post-investigation consequences as disciplinary actions requiring formal procedures, or should expediency in resolving campus conflicts ever trump full due process? Share your thoughts in the comments.
