Tensions are mounting at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) over the ongoing review of the University’s statutes, with some members of the university community, including members of the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG), threatening industrial action if their concerns are not addressed.

Several members who spoke on condition of anonymity said dissatisfaction had intensified over what they described as inadequate consultation, proposed changes to the selection of senior university officers, and provisions they believe could concentrate greater authority in the office of the Vice-Chancellor.

One source familiar with the discussions said the possibility of a strike was increasingly being discussed among some union members.

“If these concerns are ignored and attempts are made to push the statutes through without addressing the issues we have raised, then industrial action cannot be ruled out,” the source said.

Another source said opposition was particularly strong over proposals affecting the selection of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deans, and other senior academic officers.

“There is serious agitation. People believe these changes fundamentally affect how the University is governed. If management proceeds without resolving them, some members are prepared to push for a strike.”

The allegations could not immediately be independently verified.

A major point of contention is the proposed method for selecting senior university officers, particularly Pro-Vice-Chancellors and Deans.

Sources said sections of the university community want existing voting arrangements retained, arguing that elections provide an important check on executive authority.

They fear that replacing elections with appointment or other selection mechanisms could give the University's central administration greater influence over who occupies senior academic leadership positions.

“Voting is not perfect, but it gives the university community some power over who leads them,” one source said. “If you take that away and put appointments substantially in the hands of management, then you change the balance of power within the University.”

Supporters of appointment-based systems could argue that competitive searches and appointments based on defined criteria allow universities to select leaders with the competencies required to pursue institutional priorities.

The disagreement therefore raises a broader governance question over the balance between executive authority and collegial participation.

Some stakeholders also believe provisions in the proposed statutes could increase the influence of the Vice-Chancellor.

One area of disagreement concerns the composition of the Academic Board.

Sources said UTAG representatives have advocated for all Deans to be represented on the Academic Board, while a proposal under consideration would provide for four Deans to serve on a rotational basis.

Critics argue that limiting the number of Deans could reduce the direct representation of academic units on one of the University's key decision-making bodies.

Concerns have also been raised over proposed provisions affecting offices including the Director of Finance, University Librarian, and Director of University Information Technology Services.

Sources allege that aspects of the proposals could affect the tenure or employment arrangements of some officers without sufficient consultation with the unions and professional groups concerned.

The controversy has intensified following the circulation of a new draft of the statutes after about 15 months of work.

According to sources, members of the university community were initially given about one week to submit comments, prompting objections from some stakeholders and unions. The deadline was subsequently extended to about eight weeks.

The dispute is linked to an earlier process involving the development of the University's new Act and the statutes intended to operationalise it.

Sources said the Academic Board met in March 2025 to consider draft versions of the University Act and statutes referred to it by the University Council for comments.

Concerns reportedly emerged during those discussions that contributions from some sections of the University had not been captured.

A five-member committee chaired by Professor John Tia Bugri was subsequently constituted to solicit views from stakeholders across the University and prepare revised documents for consideration by the Academic Board.

Sources, however, allege that the Act eventually proceeded to Parliament without the level of stakeholder engagement they had expected.

Those allegations could not be independently verified.

According to the sources, shortly after Professor Christian Agyare assumed office as Vice-Chancellor, an emergency Academic Board meeting was convened at which the committee chaired by Professor Bugri presented an update on its work.

Another committee was subsequently established to review the work of the earlier committee.

Some members have questioned why the second committee was established before the extended period for stakeholder submissions had expired. They have also raised concerns about the committee's membership and terms of reference.

The committee later held an extended working session at the Alisa Hotel in Accra, according to the sources.

Some participants allege that stakeholder submissions were not sufficiently interrogated during the exercise and that individuals and groups that made substantial proposals were not invited to explain their positions.

Sources have also raised concerns over proposals involving the E-Learning Centre and the Institute of Distance Learning, as well as the School of Graduate Studies and the Office of Grants and Research.

They argue that major institutional restructuring should be supported by clear academic, administrative, and financial justification and should follow consultation with affected units and employees.

The growing possibility of industrial action has raised the stakes for KNUST management as the University moves towards completing the statutes.

Some union members are calling for further consideration of the document to be suspended until outstanding concerns are addressed through broader stakeholder engagement.

“What we are asking for is not that the statutes should never be passed. We are saying that a document that will govern this University for years cannot be rushed through when major stakeholders are saying they have unresolved concerns,” one source said.

Another source said the dispute had reached a point where rebuilding trust was as important as resolving individual provisions.

“There is now a serious confidence problem. Even decisions that might ordinarily be acceptable are being questioned because people no longer trust the process.”

The dispute now places pressure on KNUST management to address the concerns raised by staff and other stakeholders while ensuring that the process for finalising the statutes is sufficiently consultative and transparent.