KNUST VC's apology order to lecturer quashed by Court of Appeal

An order by the Vice-Chancellor of KNUST, Prof.Rita Akosua Dickson, requiring a senior lecturer to apologise to two colleagues has been quashed by the Court of Appeal, after judges found the process used by the university was unfair.

In a unanimous decision delivered in Kumasi on 12 February 2026, a three-member panel—Justice K. Baiden (presiding), Justice Richard Mac Kogyapwah and Justice John Bosco Nabarese—allowed an appeal by Prof. Rexford Assasie Oppong against the University thereby setting aside an earlier High Court decision that had dismissed Prof. Oppong’s request.

The dispute grew out of tension in KNUST’s Department of Architecture.

In March 2023, the Vice-Chancellor set up a fact-finding committee chaired by Prof. Samuel I.K. Ampadu after senior members of the department petitioned her. 

They accused Prof. Oppong, who was then Head of Department, of:

harassing and intimidating staff

making decisions without the departmental board

breaching graduate studies rules

disrupting mid-semester examinations

Prof. Oppong responded with his own allegations, accusing two colleagues—Prof. Daniel Yaw Addai Duah and Dr. Alexander Boakye Marful—of insubordination and of collecting money from students for extra classes.

The committee investigated both sides and made recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor. Prof. Oppong gave oral and documentary evidence but later complained that he was not allowed to cross-examine the petitioners against him.

In August 2024, the Registrar wrote to Prof. Oppong, conveying a directive from the Vice-Chancellor to apologise to the two lecturers. The committee had concluded that his claims against them were not true and had affected their reputations.

Prof. Oppong challenged the order at the High Court, saying it was effectively a disciplinary sanction imposed through a process that did not follow KNUST’s disciplinary procedures. 

He argued that the committee was only described as “fact-finding” and was not recognised under university statutes as a disciplinary body. He also said the way it was handled limited his right to appeal but the suit was dismissed by the trial court.

He thus followed to the Court of Appeal.

The appellate Justices held that the Vice-Chancellor can set up an investigative committee and receive its recommendations, but enforcing those recommendations in a way that carries disciplinary consequences requires due process.

In the ruling by Justice Baiden, the court further said an apology is not a minor administrative step because it suggests an admission of wrongdoing. 

The appelate judges indicated that before such a directive could be enforced, the university should have used procedures similar to a formal disciplinary hearing—proper notice, a fair chance to respond, and compliance with natural justice. The failure to do that, the court said, was a serious error.

The panel thus ordered that the Registrar’s letter dated 13 August 2024 be brought before the court and quashed as well as the High Court judgment delivered on 15 January 2024, and made no order as to costs.