Less than a month after the investiture of a new Vice-Chancellor, the Governing Council of KNUST has decided to end a practice that has been part of KNUST's academic governance for generations: faculty will no longer elect their own Deans and Pro-Vice-Chancellors. They will be appointed.

The timing alone should make everyone pause. A new administration has barely settled in, and already one of the University's longest-standing traditions of academic participation is being dismantled. Even more troubling is that Council is proceeding despite formal petitions from the major recognized staff unions, UTAG, GAUA and TEWU-TUC, strongly opposing the change. These are not peripheral voices; they represent the staff whose participation in the governance of the University is now being removed.

It is therefore much bigger than a change in procedure; it is a transfer of power from the academic community to the centre.

From time immemorial, academics and senior administrators have had a say in choosing their academic leaders. The system may have had weaknesses, but it has also produced leaders who enjoyed the confidence of the academic community (Professors Rita Dickson, Otoo Ellis, Adarkwa, and Odai are examples). If there are problems with the elections, fix them, tighten the rules, and improve the safeguards while making the process more transparent. But don't abolish participation because it is difficult to manage.

There is also a democratic irony that should not be lost on us. In Ghana today, ‘even’ a head porter has the constitutional right to participate in choosing the President of the Republic. Yet at KNUST, academics and senior administrators (the people who teach, research, supervise students and run the academic enterprise) are being denied the opportunity to participate in choosing those who lead their academic units.

Today it is Deans and ProVCs; tomorrow, what other forms of participation might be considered unnecessary or inconvenient?

October 2018 should still be fresh in our minds; a disagreement at KNUST escalated into a major institutional crisis, leading to disruption, destruction of property, closure of the University and dissolution of the Governing Council. We should be doing everything possible to ensure that history does not repeat itself.

Council has the authority to make decisions, yes. But having the authority to do something does not necessarily make every decision you take right. Good governance is not simply about the power to decide; it is also about knowing when to listen, when to consult, and when to reconsider.

And let us be clear: this is not merely about who becomes Dean or ProVC; it is about what kind of KNUST we want. A University that teaches critical thinking cannot afford to become intolerant of critical voices within its own walls.

KNUST has only recently restored its academic calendar after considerable disruption. The last thing the University needs is another avoidable confrontation. If this dispute escalates, students, lecturers, researchers and ultimately the University's reputation will suffer.

We have been here before. KNUST does not need another October 2018. It needs dialogue, consultation and statesmanship now. Council should pause and engage the unions seriously. Because once you take away a community's voice, you cannot simply expect its trust to remain intact.