Court of Appeal Quashes KNUST Directive Ordering Lecturer to Apologise to Colleagues: A Case Study on Academic Due Process

In a significant ruling affecting university governance and academic freedom in Ghana, the Court of Appeal in Kumasi has overturned a directive from the leadership of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST). The directive had required a senior lecturer, Professor Rexford Assasie Oppong, to formally apologise to two of his colleagues. The appellate court’s decision, delivered in early 2025, underscores the critical importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and established disciplinary procedures within tertiary institutions, even during internal fact-finding exercises.

Introduction: The Core Legal Conflict

The case centres on the boundaries between a university’s administrative authority and the procedural rights of its academic staff. Following internal allegations of misconduct and counter-allegations within KNUST’s Department of Architecture, the university’s Vice-Chancellor constituted a fact-finding committee. Based on the committee’s report, the Vice-Chancellor directed Professor Oppong to apologise to two colleagues, Prof. Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr. Alexander Boakye Marful. Professor Oppong challenged this directive, arguing it was a disguised disciplinary sanction imposed without the due process protections mandated by the university’s own statutes and the broader principles of fair hearing. The Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision to quash the directive provides a crucial precedent on the limits of executive action in university dispute resolution.

Key Points of the Ruling

The judgment, authored by Justice K. Baiden and concurred with by Justices Richard Mac Kogyapwah and John Bosco Nabareseset, establishes several key legal principles:

• Quashing of the Directive: The Court of Appeal set aside the Vice-Chancellor’s order for Professor Oppong to apologise, rendered through the university Registrar’s letter of August 13, 2024.
• Due Process Violation: The court found that directing an apology, which implies an admission of wrongdoing, constitutes a punitive or disciplinary act. Such an act cannot be based solely on a fact-finding committee’s conclusions without first affording the affected staff member the full rigours of a disciplinary hearing, including proper notice, the right to defend oneself, and the right to cross-examine accusers.
• Nature of the Committee: While affirming the Vice-Chancellor’s power to establish a fact-finding committee to investigate complaints, the court made a clear distinction. The recommendations of such a committee cannot be automatically translated into disciplinary sanctions. If the findings warrant sanction, the matter must be processed through the formally recognised disciplinary channels outlined in the university’s statutes.
• Certiorari Granted: The court granted the writ of certiorari (a remedy to quash an illegal or ultra vires decision), finding the circumstances warranted intervention. It noted the dispute’s potential to fester and disrupt academic peace at KNUST, a premier institution.
• High Court Overturned: The appellate court unanimously allowed Professor Oppong’s appeal, thereby setting aside the earlier High Court judgment of January 15, 2024, which had dismissed his application for judicial review.

Background: The Sequence of Events at KNUST

The Initial Petition and Committee Formation

The conflict originated from a petition submitted by some senior members of the Department of Architecture to the KNUST Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Rita Akosua Dickson, in March 2023. The petition levelled several serious allegations against Professor Oppong, who was then the Head of Department. The accusations included harassment and intimidation of staff, making unilateral decisions without departmental board approval, non-compliance with graduate study regulations, and disrupting mid-semester examinations.

The Counter-Allegations

In response, Professor Oppong filed counter-allegations against two of his colleagues, Prof. Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr. Alexander Boakye Marful. He accused them of insubordination and of soliciting money from students to organise extra classes, a serious charge within an academic context.

The Ampadu Committee’s Mandate and Proceedings

The Vice-Chancellor constituted a fact-finding committee, chaired by Prof. Samuel K. Ampadu, with a broad mandate: to investigate both the original petition against Professor Oppong and his counter-allegations. Professor Oppong participated in the committee’s proceedings, presenting both oral testimony and documentary evidence. A pivotal point of contention emerged when Professor Oppong complained that he was not permitted to cross-examine the individuals who had signed the original petition against him—a fundamental aspect of a fair hearing.

The Directive to Apologise

After its investigations, the Ampadu Committee submitted its report. It found the allegations made by Professor Oppong against Prof. Duah and Dr. Marful to be unfounded and concluded that these allegations had injured the reputations of the two academics. Based on this, the Vice-Chancellor, in August 2024, directed Professor Oppong to apologise to the two colleagues.

Analysis: The Court’s Reasoning on Natural Justice and University Governance

Distinguishing Fact-Finding from Disciplinary Action

The Court of Appeal’s analysis hinges on a critical legal distinction. Justice Baiden’s judgment clarifies that while a university’s chief executive (the Vice-Chancellor) possesses the administrative authority to constitute committees for fact-finding and advisory purposes, the implementation of those findings is a separate legal act. The court held that an order to apologise, particularly in a professional and public academic setting, is not a trivial or administrative matter. It carries the weight of a disciplinary sanction because it compels an individual to make a statement that the world would interpret as an acknowledgment of fault.

The “Fatal Omission” of Due Process

The judges identified a “fatal omission” in the university’s process. The principles of natural justice, or audiatur et altera pars (hear the other side), require that before a person is subjected to a penalty or a finding that tarnishes their reputation, they must be given:

1. Adequate Notice: Clear, specific details of the allegations and the evidence against them.
2. A Fair Hearing: The opportunity to present their case, challenge evidence, and cross-examine witnesses who make detrimental claims.

The court noted that the format of the fact-finding committee, as conducted, did not afford Professor Oppong the full right to cross-examine his accusers. Therefore, using that committee’s findings as the sole basis for a disciplinary directive (the apology order) violated his right to a fair hearing.

University Statutes as the Governing Framework

Another pillar of the judgment is the emphasis on the university’s own governing statutes. The court pointed out that the fact-finding committee was not a body recognised by KNUST’s statutes as a formal disciplinary tribunal. The statutes would outline specific procedures for handling staff misconduct, including appeals mechanisms. By bypassing these statutory procedures, the Vice-Chancellor’s action was deemed ultra vires (beyond the powers) or, at the very least, procedurally improper. A university, like any public body or body performing public functions, must act within the limits of its established legal framework.

Discretionary Remedy and Public Interest

The remedy of certiorari is discretionary. The court acknowledged this but found the circumstances compelling enough to intervene. It highlighted the dispute’s potential to escalate and cause ongoing disruption to the academic environment and collegial relationships at KNUST. The court saw its role as correcting a clear error that undermined institutional fairness and could harm the university’s core mission of teaching and research.

Practical Advice for University Administrators and Academic Staff

For University Management (Vice-Chancellors, Registrars, Deans):

• Clarify Committee Mandates: Clearly distinguish between ad-hoc fact-finding/investigative committees and formal disciplinary committees. The former should be used to gather information and make recommendations; the latter must follow strict, statute-prescribed procedures to impose sanctions.
• Follow the Statutes: Disciplinary actions, including reprimands, fines, suspension, or termination, must be processed through the mechanisms explicitly provided for in the university’s statutes and ordinances. Do not use administrative letters to effect what is, in substance, a punishment.
• Guarantee Fair Hearing Rights: Any process that could lead to a disciplinary outcome must guarantee the staff member’s right to know the case against them, to present a defence, to have representation, and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Document all steps meticulously.
• Seek Legal Counsel: When internal investigations yield findings that may necessitate disciplinary action, consult the university’s legal advisors to ensure the subsequent process is legally sound and compliant with employment law and principles of natural justice.

For Academic Staff Facing Internal Inquiries:

• Know Your Rights: Familiarise yourself with your university’s statutes, particularly the sections on staff discipline, grievances, and appeals. These are your contractual rulebook.
• Engage Constructively but Cautiously: Participate in fact-finding committees but clearly state on record if you believe the process is veering into a disciplinary arena without proper procedure. Request specific rights, like cross-examination, in writing.
• Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all communications, meetings, and evidence. Note any instances where you feel your right to a fair hearing is being compromised.
• Seek Judicial Review Promptly: If you believe a university directive is illegal, irrational, or procedurally unfair (the grounds for judicial review), consult a lawyer immediately. There are strict time limits for filing such applications in Ghana.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is the difference between a fact-finding committee and a disciplinary committee?

A fact-finding committee is an investigative body. Its role is to gather information, hear sides, and make recommendations or findings of fact to the decision-maker (e.g., the Vice-Chancellor). A disciplinary committee is a quasi-judicial body established by statute or formal regulation. It conducts hearings where formal charges are proved or disproved, and it has the power to impose sanctions (like warnings, fines, or dismissal) after a full hearing that respects all rules of natural justice.

Can a university Vice-Chancellor order an employee to apologise?

The Vice-Chancellor’s powers are administrative and executive. They can request or encourage an apology as part of conflict resolution or mediation. However, if the order to apologise is framed as a mandatory directive following an investigation into alleged misconduct, it becomes a disciplinary action. As the KNUST case shows, such a mandatory directive must then be supported by a fair and proper disciplinary process. An apology compelled without due process is illegal.

What is “natural justice” or “fair hearing” in this context?

It is a fundamental legal principle requiring decision-makers to be fair. Its two main pillars are: 1) Nemo iudex in causa sua: No one should be a judge in their own cause (impartiality). 2) Audiatur et altera pars: The other side must be heard. In a university disciplinary context, this means the accused staff member must receive clear notice of allegations, have access to the evidence, be given a reasonable opportunity to present their defence and evidence, and have the chance to challenge the evidence and testimony of their accusers.

What is judicial review and certiorari?

Judicial review is a process where a court examines the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body (like a state university). Certiorari is a specific remedy within judicial review. It is an order from a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send up the record of a case so that the higher court can review it for error. If the higher court finds the lower decision was made illegally, it “quashes” or nullifies it. In this case, the Court of Appeal used certiorari to quash the Registrar’s letter containing the apology directive.

Does this ruling mean Professor Oppong is exonerated of the original allegations?

No. The court’s ruling is strictly about the procedure used to impose the apology order. The court did not investigate or make a finding on the substantive truth of the original allegations of harassment or the counter-allegations. The court’s role was to determine if the process leading to the penalty was lawful. The underlying facts remain unproven within a proper disciplinary forum. The university is free to initiate fresh, procedurally correct disciplinary proceedings if it believes there is a case to answer.

Conclusion: Strengthening Institutional Integrity Through Procedure

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the KNUST case is a landmark affirmation that procedural integrity is non-negotiable, even within the autonomous walls of a university. It sends a clear message to all public and quasi-public institutions: administrative convenience or a desire for swift resolution cannot override the foundational legal rights of individuals. A fact-finding exercise is just that—a fact-finding exercise. It cannot be a shortcut to punishment. For academic staff, the ruling is a vital safeguard, confirming that their professional standing and reputation can only be formally impugned after a process that is demonstrably fair and aligned with institutional rules. For KNUST and similar institutions, the judgment is an opportunity to review and strengthen their internal disciplinary frameworks, ensuring that future internal conflicts are resolved not through potentially unlawful administrative fiats, but through transparent, just, and legally sound procedures that uphold both institutional discipline and individual rights. The ultimate goal is to foster an environment of genuine academic freedom, mutual respect, and trustworthy governance.

Sources and References

• Court of Appeal Judgment (Kumasi Division): Rexford Assasie Oppong v. The Registrar, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (Unreported, delivered February 2025).
• Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) Statutes and Regulations governing staff discipline and grievances (as referenced in court proceedings).
• Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992 (particularly on the right to fair hearing and administrative justice).
• Rules of Court (CI 47) on the remedy of certiorari in Ghana.
• Original reporting from Life Pulse Daily on the initial High Court proceedings and the appeal filing (used for chronological context).