The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has quashed a directive by the Vice-Chancellor of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) requiring a senior lecturer to apologise to two colleagues, ruling that the decision breached the rules of natural justice.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on 12 February 2026, a three-member panel comprising Justices K. Baiden (presiding), Richard Mac Kogyapwah and John Bosco Nabarese allowed an appeal filed by Prof Rexford Assasie Oppong against the university’s Registrar.
The court set aside an earlier High Court ruling that had dismissed Prof Oppong’s application for judicial review.
Background to the dispute
The case stems from events in March 2023, when the Vice-Chancellor of KNUST Prof. Rita Akosua Dickson 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 to make 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.
Appeal court’s findings
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 13 August 2024, containing the directive for Prof Oppong to apologise, be brought before the court and quashed.
The High Court judgment delivered on 15 January 2024 was set aside. No order was made as to costs.
Broader implications
The ruling clarifies the distinction between fact-finding committees and disciplinary bodies within public institutions, particularly universities.
The Court of Appeal emphasised that while administrators may rely on investigative committees, any action that carries disciplinary consequences must comply strictly with statutory procedures and the principles of fair hearing.
The judges also advised Prof Oppong to consider exhausting internal grievance mechanisms in future disputes, while criticising the university for failing to assist the court with full copies of its statutes.
The decision is likely to influence how disciplinary and investigative processes are conducted in Ghana’s public universities, especially in cases involving senior academic staff.
Attached is the full ruling:
Source: www.kumasimail.com
