channel247 online
The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has annulled a directive issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) ordering a senior lecturer to apologise to two colleagues, ruling that the decision violated principles of natural justice.
In a unanimous decision delivered on February 12, 2026, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal filed by Prof. Rexford Assasie Oppong against the university’s Registrar. The panel, presided over by Justice K. Baiden and supported by Justices Richard Mac Kogyapwah and John Bosco Nabarese, set aside an earlier High Court ruling that had dismissed the professor’s application for judicial review.
Background
The dispute traces back to March 2023, when the Vice-Chancellor of KNUST, Prof. Rita Akosua Dickson, constituted a committee to investigate a petition lodged by some senior members of the Department of Architecture. The petition accused Prof. Oppong, then Head of Department, of misconduct including intimidation of colleagues, unilateral decision-making and breaches of graduate studies regulations.
Prof. Oppong denied the allegations and in turn accused two colleagues of insubordination and impropriety involving students. Although he appeared before the committee and submitted evidence, he later complained that he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine his accusers.
Following the committee’s findings, the Registrar, acting on the Vice-Chancellor’s directives, wrote to Prof. Oppong in August 2024 instructing him to apologise to the two lecturers after the allegations against them were deemed unfounded.
Court’s findings
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Baiden held that while the Vice-Chancellor had the authority to establish a fact-finding committee, enforcing its recommendations in a manner that effectively imposed a disciplinary sanction required strict adherence to due process.
The court noted that compelling a professor to apologise was not a mere administrative step but one that implied culpability. As such, it required procedures consistent with disciplinary action, including adequate notice and a fair hearing.
The judges described the failure to follow proper procedures as a serious flaw, warranting the court’s intervention. Consequently, the panel quashed the Registrar’s letter dated August 13, 2024, and overturned the earlier High Court decision. No order was made as to costs.
Implications
The ruling draws a clear line between investigative committees and bodies empowered to impose disciplinary sanctions within public institutions. It underscores that any measure carrying punitive consequences must comply fully with statutory requirements and the rules of natural justice.
The decision is expected to influence how universities and other public institutions handle internal investigations and disciplinary processes, particularly in cases involving senior academic staff.
