Bold statement: Justice isn’t served when due process is skipped, especially in academia where reputations and careers hang in the balance. And this is where the story gets especially intricate...
The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has overturned a directive from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) Vice-Chancellor, Prof Rita Akosua Dickson, which had ordered a senior lecturer to apologize to two colleagues. The appellate court ruled that enforcing such an apology as a disciplinary sanction violated the rules of natural justice.
What happened, in plain terms: a three-member panel of justices heard an appeal from Prof Rexford Assasie Oppong against a registrar of KNUST. The panel—comprising Justice K. Baiden (presiding), Justice Richard Mac Kogyapwah, and Justice John Bosco Nabareseset—unanimously set aside a previous High Court decision that had dismissed Oppong’s judicial review application.
Background details: In March 2023, the KNUST Vice-Chancellor appointed a fact-finding committee chaired by Prof Samuel I.K. Ampadu to investigate a petition from senior Architecture Department members. They accused Prof Oppong—then Head of Department—of harassment and intimidation, unilateral decision-making without consulting the department board, flouting graduate studies regulations, and disrupting mid-semester examinations. In response, Oppong accused two colleagues—Prof Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr Alexander Boakye Marful—of insubordination and soliciting money from students to fund extra classes.
The Ampadu Committee’s remit was to investigate both Oppong’s alleged misconduct and the counter-allegations, and to make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor. Oppong appeared before the committee, presenting oral and documentary evidence, but later claimed he wasn’t allowed to cross-examine his accusers.
By August 2024, the Registrar informed Oppong of the Vice-Chancellor’s directives based on the committee’s findings. The committee had concluded that the allegations against the two lecturers were untrue and had damaged their reputations. Subsequently, the Vice-Chancellor directed Oppong to apologize to his two colleagues.
Oppong challenged that directive, arguing that although the committee was labeled a fact-finding body, turning its recommendations into a disciplinary sanction—without following established disciplinary procedures—violated due process. He also argued that the committee wasn’t recognized as a disciplinary body under the university’s statutes, and that his right to appeal was effectively stifled.
The Court of Appeal agreed that while the Vice-Chancellor had the administrative authority to establish a fact-finding body and to receive its recommendations, enforcing those recommendations in a way that equates to disciplinary action required proper due process. Justice Baiden, delivering the lead judgment, stated that ordering an apology wasn’t a trivial matter but implied admitting wrongdoing. Therefore, before enforcing such a directive, the Vice-Chancellor should have followed disciplinary-like procedures, ensuring notice and a fair hearing in line with natural justice.
The court described the failure to follow due process as a “fatal omission.” While certiorari is a discretionary remedy, the court found the circumstances warranted intervention, noting the dispute’s potential to escalate and destabilize the university’s academic peace.
Conclusion: The panel quashed the Registrar’s August 13, 2024 letter that commanded Oppong to apologize. The High Court’s January 15, 2024 judgment was set aside, and no order for costs was made.
In short, the judiciary signaled that institutional accountability is essential, but it must be pursued through proper, transparent, and fair disciplinary channels rather than through ad hoc directives that resemble punitive measures without due process.
Would you agree that universities should reserve public apologies as a form of sanction, or should any such requirement always be carefully bounded by formal disciplinary procedures? Share your thoughts in the comments.
