The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has overturned a directive by the Vice Chancellor of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) that ordered a senior lecturer to apologise to two colleagues. The court ruled that the directive did not follow the rules of natural justice and exceeded the authority granted for disciplinary actions.
A three-member panel of judges led by Justice K. Baiden delivered a unanimous judgment on February 12, 2026, allowing an appeal filed by Professor Rexford Assasie Oppong, a senior lecturer in the Department of Architecture at KNUST. The court also set aside a previous High Court decision that had dismissed Prof. Oppong’s application for judicial review.
The dispute began in March 2023 after senior members of the Architecture department petitioned the Vice Chancellor accusing Prof. Oppong of harassment, intimidation of staff, making unilateral decisions without consulting the departmental board and failing to follow graduate studies regulations. Prof. Oppong, however, levelled his own allegations of insubordination against two colleagues.
The Vice Chancellor formed a fact-finding committee led by another professor to investigate the complaints. After reviewing submissions, the committee concluded that the allegations against the two lecturers were untrue and recommended action. In August 2024, the Registrar conveyed a letter from the Vice Chancellor directing Prof. Oppong to apologise based on the committee’s findings.
Prof. Oppong challenged the directive in court, arguing that the fact-finding committee was not a recognised disciplinary body under university statutes and that he had not been given a fair opportunity to cross-examine his critics. The Court of Appeal agreed that enforcing a requirement to apologise was a disciplinary measure that should have followed formal procedures and offered the professor a full hearing in line with university regulations and natural justice principles.
The appellate court described the failure to follow proper disciplinary procedures as a “fatal omission,” and quashed both the Vice Chancellor’s directive and the previous High Court ruling. The judgment clarifies that while university administrators may establish committees to investigate issues, disciplinary sanctions must adhere strictly to due process and statutory requirements
