The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has quashed a directive by the Vice-Chancellor of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) demanding that a senior lecturer apologise to two colleagues on the grounds of breach of the rules of natural justice.

Court documents showed that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal filed by Prof Rexford Assasie Oppong against the university’s Registrar.

The three justices—Justice K. Baiden (presiding), Justice Richard Mac Kogyapwah, and Justice John Bosco Nabareseset – unanimously set aside an earlier High Court ruling that had dismissed Prof Oppong’s application for judicial review.

The Vice-Chancellor of KNUST, Prof Rita Akosua Dickson, in March 2023, constituted a fact-finding committee chaired by Prof Samuel I.K. Ampadu to investigate a petition submitted by some senior members of the Department of Architecture.

The petition accused Prof Oppong, who was then Head of Department, of harassment and intimidation of staff, taking unilateral decisions without recourse to the departmental board, failing to adhere to graduate studies regulations, and disrupting mid-semester examinations.

Prof Oppong, in turn, levelled allegations against two colleagues: Prof Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr Alexander Boakye Marful, accusing them of insubordination and soliciting money from students to organise extra classes.

The Ampadu Committee was tasked with investigating both the petition against Prof Oppong and his counter-allegations and making recommendations to the vice-chancellor.

Prof Oppong appeared before the committee and submitted both oral and documentary evidence. However, he later complained that he had not been allowed to cross-examine his accusers.

In August 2024, the Registrar wrote to Prof. Oppong, conveying directives from the Vice-Chancellor based on the committee’s findings. The committee had concluded that the allegations against the two lecturers were untrue and had injured their reputations.

The Vice-Chancellor subsequently directed Prof Oppong to apologise to the two colleagues.

Prof Oppong challenged the directive, arguing that although the committee was described as a fact-finding body, the order to apologise amounted to a disciplinary sanction imposed without following the university’s disciplinary procedures.

He further argued that the committee was not recognised under the university’s 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 the administrative authority to set up a fact-finding committee and receive its recommendations, enforcing those recommendations in a manner that amounted to disciplinary action required adherence to due process.

Justice Baiden, delivering the lead judgment, held that directing Prof Oppong to apologise was not a “simple matter” but one that implied an admission of wrongdoing.

The court said that before enforcing such a directive, the Vice-Chancellor ought to have adopted procedures akin to disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that the professor was given proper notice and a fair hearing in line with the rules of natural justice.

The judges described the failure to follow due process as a “fatal omission."
Although certiorari, the remedy sought, is discretionary, the court said the circumstances warranted intervention, noting that the dispute had the potential to escalate and disrupt academic peace within the university.

The panel therefore ordered that the Registrar’s letter dated August 13, 2024, containing the directive for Prof Oppong to apologise, be brought before the court and quashed.

The High Court judgment delivered on January 15, 2024, was set aside. No order was made as to costs.