The Court of Appeal in Kumasi overturned a decree made by Prof. Rita Akosua Dickson, Vice-Chancellor of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, requiring a senior professor to apologize to two colleagues. The court determined that the directive violated the principles of natural justice.
On February 12, 2026, a three-member panel consisting of Justices K. Baiden (presiding), Richard Mac Kogyapwah, and John Bosco Nabarese granted an appeal brought by Prof. Rexford Assasie Oppong against the university’s registrar.
According to Citinewsroom, the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier High Court decision issued on January 15, 2024, which denied Prof. Oppong’s appeal for judicial review.
The dispute began in March 2023, when senior members of the Department of Architecture filed a petition accusing Prof. Oppong, then Head of Department, of harassing and intimidating staff, making unilateral decisions without consulting the departmental board, failing to follow graduate studies regulations, and disrupting mid-semester examinations.
In response, Prof. Oppong leveled counter-allegations against two colleagues, Prof. Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr. Alexander Boakye Marful, accusing them of insubordination and collecting funds from students to organize extra classes.
Read Also: Ghana bleeds when the New Patriotic Party is divided – Afenyo-Markin
The Vice-Chancellor then formed a fact-finding committee, led by Prof. Samuel I.K. Ampadu, to investigate both the initial petition and the counter-allegations. Prof. Oppong presented oral and documentary evidence before the committee, but later claimed that he was not allowed to cross-examine his accusers.
In August 2024, the Registrar delivered the Vice-Chancellor’s mandate for Prof. Oppong to apologize to the two professors. The committee decided that Prof. Oppong’s claims against them were false and had hurt their reputations.
Prof. Oppong challenged the instruction in court, claiming that, while the committee was billed as fact-finding, the obligation to apologize effectively constituted a disciplinary consequence imposed without following the university’s proper disciplinary procedures. He further claimed that the committee was not a recognized disciplinary body under university laws and that his right of appeal had been limited.
Justice Baiden, who delivered the lead opinion, emphasized that while the vice-chancellor had the right to form a fact-finding committee and accept its findings, translating those recommendations into disciplinary action necessitated rigorous respect for due process.
The court ruled that requiring Prof. Oppong to apologize was more than just an administrative command; it implied an admission of culpability. Before executing such a directive, the vice-chancellor should have followed processes comparable to those employed in formal disciplinary trials, such as providing adequate notice and a fair hearing in accordance with natural justice principles. The judges viewed the inability to meet these conditions as a catastrophic omission.
Although the requested remedy was an order of certiorari, the court found the circumstances serious enough to warrant intervention, observing that the debate had the potential to grow and disrupt academic harmony. The panel so ruled that the Registrar’s letter dated August 13, 2024, be submitted before the court and annulled. The previous High Court decision was overturned, and no order for costs was issued.
The Court of Appeal encouraged Prof. Oppong to use internal grievance procedures in any future conflicts and chastised the institution for failing to provide the court with comprehensive copies of its laws.
Source: 1957 news
Leave a comment