The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has quashed a directive issued by Prof. Rita Akosua Dickson, Vice-Chancellor of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, which required a senior lecturer to apologise to two colleagues. The court ruled that the directive breached the rules of natural justice.
In a unanimous decision delivered on February 12, 2026, a three-member panel consisting of 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.
According to a Citinewsroom report, the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier High Court ruling delivered on January 15, 2024, which had dismissed Prof. Oppong’s application for judicial review.
The dispute originated from events in March 2023 when senior members of the Department of Architecture submitted a petition accusing Prof. Oppong, who was then Head of Department, of harassing and intimidating staff, taking unilateral decisions without consulting the departmental board, failing to follow graduate studies regulations, and disrupting mid-semester examinations.
In response, Prof. Oppong made counter-allegations against two colleagues, Prof. Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr. Alexander Boakye Marful, claiming they were guilty of insubordination and of soliciting money from students to organise extra classes.
The Vice-Chancellor then constituted a fact-finding committee chaired by Prof. Samuel I.K. Ampadu to investigate both the original petition and the counter-allegations. Prof. Oppong submitted oral and documentary evidence to the committee but later complained that he had not been permitted to cross-examine his accusers.
In August 2024 the Registrar conveyed a directive from the Vice-Chancellor ordering Prof. Oppong to apologise to the two lecturers. The committee had concluded that the allegations Prof. Oppong made against them were untrue and had harmed their reputations.
Prof. Oppong challenged the directive in court, arguing that although the committee had been described as fact-finding, the requirement to apologise effectively amounted to a disciplinary sanction imposed without following the university’s formal disciplinary procedures. He further contended that the committee was not a recognised disciplinary body under the university statutes and that his right of appeal had been curtailed.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Baiden explained that while the Vice-Chancellor had the authority to establish a fact-finding committee and to receive its recommendations, turning those recommendations into disciplinary action required strict adherence to due process.
The court held that directing Prof. Oppong to apologise was not a simple administrative instruction but carried the implication of an admission of wrongdoing. Before enforcing such a directive, the Vice-Chancellor should have followed procedures similar to those used in formal disciplinary hearings, including proper notice and a fair hearing in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The judges described the failure to observe these requirements as a fatal omission.
Although the remedy sought was an order of certiorari, the court considered the circumstances serious enough to warrant intervention, noting that the dispute had the potential to escalate and disturb academic peace. The panel therefore ordered that the Registrar’s letter dated August 13, 2024 be brought before the court and quashed. The earlier High Court judgment was set aside, and no order was made as to costs.
The Court of Appeal advised Prof. Oppong to exhaust internal grievance mechanisms in any future disputes and criticised the university for failing to supply the court with complete copies of its statutes.