Court of Appeal Quashes KNUST VC’s Directive for Lecturer to Apologise.
The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has nullified a directive issued by Prof. Rita Akosua Dickson, Vice-Chancellor of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), which required a senior lecturer to apologise to two colleagues. The court ruled that the directive violated the principles of natural justice.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on February 12, 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 also set aside a previous High Court ruling that had dismissed Prof. Oppong’s application for judicial review.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute originated in March 2023 when the Vice-Chancellor appointed a fact-finding committee, chaired by Prof. Samuel I.K. Ampadu, to investigate a petition from senior members of the Department of Architecture. The petition alleged that Prof. Oppong, then Head of Department, had harassed staff, acted unilaterally without consulting the departmental board, breached graduate study regulations, and disrupted mid-semester examinations.
Prof. Oppong, however, countered with accusations against two colleagues, Prof. Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr. Alexander Boakye Marful alleging insubordination and soliciting money from students to organise extra classes.
The Ampadu Committee examined both the petition and the counterclaims, producing recommendations for the Vice-Chancellor. Despite presenting oral and documentary evidence, Prof. Oppong later complained that he was not allowed to cross-examine his accusers.
In August 2024, the Registrar conveyed the Vice-Chancellor’s directive to Prof. Oppong, instructing him to apologise based on the committee’s findings. The committee had concluded that the allegations against the lecturers were false and damaging to their reputations.
Prof. Oppong challenged the directive, arguing that it amounted to a disciplinary sanction imposed without following proper university disciplinary procedures. He also pointed out that the fact-finding committee was not recognised under university statutes as a disciplinary body, and that his right to appeal had been limited.
Appeal Court’s Ruling
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the Vice-Chancellor’s authority to establish fact-finding committees but clarified that recommendations from such committees cannot be enforced as disciplinary actions without due process.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Baiden stated that directing Prof. Oppong to apologise implied an admission of wrongdoing and was therefore not a “simple matter.” The court ruled that proper procedures, akin to formal disciplinary hearings, should have been followed to ensure fair notice and a hearing consistent with natural justice. The failure to do so was deemed a “fatal omission.”
The panel consequently quashed the Registrar’s August 13, 2024, letter and set aside the High Court judgment of January 15, 2024, with no order as to costs.
Broader Implications
The ruling highlights the clear distinction between investigative fact-finding committees and disciplinary bodies in public institutions, particularly universities.
The Court of Appeal emphasised that while administrators can rely on such committees for guidance, any action carrying disciplinary consequences must strictly adhere to statutory procedures and fair hearing principles.
The judges also advised Prof. Oppong to utilise internal grievance mechanisms for future disputes and criticised the university for not providing full copies of its statutes to the court.