A report of a fact finding Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) in Kumasi, is being challenged in a Kumasi High Court.
The applicant, Prof. Rexford Assasie Oppong, per his Counsel, Derrick Adu Gyamfi, has filed a notice on motion for application for an Order for Certiorari against the Registrar of KNUST, for the purposes of quashing the findings and report of the Prof. Samuel I.K. Ampadu fact-finding Committee.
The court would be moved on October 14, 2024 to hear the matter.
The applicant claims the committee’s findings and report on August 13, 2024 and October 2023 breached procedural and substantive standards of the respondent’s statutes.
The applicant is also seeking an order to be directed at the respondent Registrar to withdraw the August 13, 2024 findings and issue a circular to the effect that the applicant is not guilty of the charges and accusations levelled against him.
The action by Professor Rexford Assasie Oppong, who is the head of the Department of Architecture at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), centres around allegations of improper disciplinary procedures and breaches of university regulations.
It seeks a range of legal remedies, including an injunction against the implementation of a directive issued by the vice-chancellor based on the recommendations of the committee in question.
The applicant states that on March 23, 2023 he received a letter from the registrar of KNUST informing him of a petition submitted by several senior members of his department.
The petition accused him of multiple infractions, including harassment and intimidation of staff, making unilateral decisions without consulting the department board, violating the School of Graduate Studies’ regulations on postgraduate studies and disrupting mid-semester exams held on March 1, 2023.
Prof. Oppong maintains that the allegations are baseless and that the process used to investigate them was procedurally flawed.
According to him, the fact-finding committee formed by the vice-chancellor, led by Professor Samuel I.K. Ampadu was not constituted in accordance with the university’s statutes, which require a disciplinary committee for such matters rather than a fact-finding committee.
Prof Oppong further argues that the committee’s formation and procedures violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing as he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioners during the committee’s interactions.
He said despite providing oral and documentary evidence refuting the claims against him, the fact-finding committee proceeded with its investigations and submitted a report to the Vice Chancellor upon which the VC reportedly gave directives as communicated to him by the Registrar of the respondent university on August 14, 2024.
Prof. Oppong, however, has refused to comply with the directive, asserting that the committee’s findings were biased and lacked credibility.
He describes the report as flawed and claims that it failed to meet professional standards, alleging that the committee’s work was characterized by procedural impropriety.
In an affidavit in support of his statement of claims, Prof. Oppong saw the findings and recommendations of Prof. Samuel I.K. Ampadu Fact- Finding Committee as bias and irregular with complete disregard for laid down rules and available evidence on record and prayed for a judicial review of same.
He believes the respondent did not follow laid down procedures and rules under its statutes thus render the Committee and the resultant directives by the VC null and void.
The legal action filed on September 19, 2024 by the applicant is, therefore, seeking an order of the court to invalidate the actions taken by the fact-finding committee and to prohibit the implementation of the Vice Chancellor’s directive.
He is also seeking an injunction to prevent any individual from acting in a public office for which they are not legally entitled.
Prof. Oppong claims that the university’s actions and procedural violations have severely impacted his professional standing and caused him unjust harm.
The respondent is yet to file defence against the applicant’s claims, as well as enter appearance.
