|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has quashed a directive issued by Prof. Rita Akosua Dickson, Vice-Chancellor of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), which required a senior lecturer to apologise to two colleagues. The court ruled that the decision breached the rules of natural justice.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on February 12, 2026, a three-member panel comprising Justices K. Baiden (presiding), Richard Mac Kogyapwah, and John Bosco Nabarese allowed an appeal filed by Prof. Rexford Assasie Oppong against the university’s Registrar. The panel set aside an earlier High Court ruling that had dismissed Prof. Oppong’s application for judicial review.
Background to the dispute
The case arose from events in March 2023, when the Vice-Chancellor constituted a fact-finding committee chaired by Prof. Samuel I. K. Ampadu to investigate a petition submitted by senior members of the Department of Architecture.
The petition accused Prof. Oppong, then Head of Department, of harassment and intimidation of staff, taking unilateral decisions without consulting the departmental board, failing to adhere to graduate studies regulations, and disrupting mid-semester examinations.
Prof. Oppong, in response, accused two colleagues — Prof. Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr. Alexander Boakye Marful — of insubordination and of soliciting money from students to organise extra classes.
The Ampadu Committee investigated both the petition and the counter-allegations and made recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor. Prof. Oppong presented oral and documentary evidence but later complained that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine his accusers.
In August 2024, the Registrar wrote to Prof. Oppong conveying the Vice-Chancellor’s directive that he apologise to the two lecturers, based on the committee’s findings. The committee had concluded that the allegations against the lecturers were untrue and had damaged their reputations.
Prof. Oppong challenged the directive, arguing that although the committee was described as fact-finding, the order to apologise amounted to a disciplinary sanction imposed without following the university’s prescribed disciplinary procedures. He further contended that the committee was not recognised under KNUST statutes as a disciplinary body and that his right of appeal had been curtailed.
Appeal court’s findings
The Court of Appeal held that while the Vice-Chancellor had the authority to establish a fact-finding committee and receive its recommendations, enforcing those recommendations as disciplinary action required strict adherence to due process.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Baiden stated that directing Prof. Oppong to apologise was not a “simple matter” but carried an implication of wrongdoing. The court ruled that before enforcing such a directive, the Vice-Chancellor ought to have followed procedures akin to formal disciplinary hearings, including providing proper notice and ensuring a fair hearing in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The judges described the failure to do so as a “fatal omission.”
Although certiorari was the relief sought, the court held that the circumstances justified its intervention, noting that the dispute had the potential to escalate and disrupt academic peace. The panel consequently ordered that the Registrar’s letter dated August 13, 2024, be brought before the court and quashed. The High Court judgment delivered on January 15, 2024, was also set aside, with no order as to costs.
Broader implications
The ruling clarifies the distinction between fact-finding committees and disciplinary bodies within public institutions, particularly universities.
The Court of Appeal emphasised that while administrators may rely on investigative committees, any action carrying disciplinary consequences must strictly comply with statutory procedures and the principles of a fair hearing.
The judges advised Prof. Oppong to consider exhausting internal grievance mechanisms in future disputes and criticised the university for failing to provide the court with complete copies of its statutes.
