'Halt plans on C'wealth Hall until ...'

Saturday, May 29, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Fast Track High Court yesterday advised the authorities of the University of Ghana to halt plans to convert the all-male Commonwealth Hall into a mixed gender hall until the final determination of a suit brought against the university and two others by four executive members of the hall.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice K. A. Ofori, gave the advice after he adjourned proceedings to June 15, 2010 to make it possible for Prof. Kwesi Yankah, the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the university, who has also been sued by the students, to be served with the writ of summons.
Counsel for the university, which was sued alongside the Executive Committee of the university and the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the university, Mr Ace Anan Ankomah, assured the court that the defendants would take a cue from the court’s advice and desist from doing anything that would warrant their being cited for contempt of court.
Prof. Yankah was also directed to respond to the writ of summons before the next adjourned date to enable parties to argue their case to pave way for ruling on the matter in which the four executive members of Commonwealth Hall have, on behalf of more than 4000 students, dragged the university to the court following the decision of the university to convert the all-male hall into a graduate mixed gender hall.
The executive members are praying the court to restrain the defendants from going ahead with their plan to convert the all-male hall into a mixed graduate gender hall.
The plaintiffs are Joshua Laari, hall president; Emmanuel Nketia, vice-president; Frederick Owusu Prempeh, treasurer, and Kofi Asante Sampong, secretary.
According to the plaintiffs, “unless urgently restrained by this honourable court, the defendants will proceed with their unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional intentions and actions to frustrate and deprive the plaintiffs of their legal and constitutional rights,” but the defendants have denied any wrongdoing and described the action as “misconceived and premature”.
At the court’s sitting yesterday, Mr Ankomah informed the court that the university filed an affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs’ suit in the morning, but the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Nana Ato Dadzie, said he had not received copies of the affidavit.
The court also stated that it had not received a copy of the affidavit and directed that steps must be taken to ensure that the plaintiffs and the court received their copies.
A large number of present and past members of the hall thronged the court premises clad in red attire and armbands to signify their objection to the university’s plans.
In the substantive matter, the plaintiffs claim that the decision of the defendants violated the Constitution to the extent that “the same amounts to an unfair and unreasonable exercise of administrative power”.
The plaintiffs are accordingly praying the court to declare that per Section 46 (2) of the statutes of the university which was still in force, the Commonwealth Hall was an all-male hall of residence.
They are also praying the court to declare that the decision by the defendants was a flagrant abuse of the basic rules of natural justice, disregard of the statutes of the university and null and void.
The students, who said their pleas to the authorities to intervene in the matter had not yielded any positive results, are also praying for a declaration that Commonwealth Hall as a hall did not participate in events which were considered disgraceful by university authorities on March 13, 2010.
They are also seeking a further declaration that Prof. Yankah by his conduct and comments was obviously biased and prejudiced against the plaintiffs and his participation in the decision to convert Commonwealth Hall into a graduate mixed gender hall of residence was contrary to the basic rules of natural justice.
An affidavit in opposition filed by the defendants stated among other things that an unruly mob of students from the precincts of the Commonwealth Hall gathered in front of the central cafeteria on March 13, 2010 and blocked the official procession of the University Council and senior members which was yet to begin and physically prevented it from moving towards the ceremony grounds.
“They harassed the participants in the official procession and other persons moving towards the ceremony grounds forcing them to retreat. They continued to harass and intimidate, even when the 1st Defendant’s Chancellor, His Excellency Busumuru Kofi Annan, arrived with his entourage, compelling them also to retreat and return after the mob had dispersed,” the affidavit pointed out.
It said “even though the university’s officials demanded that the students allow the official possession to pass, they refused and insisted on carrying out certain ‘rituals’ before allowing the official procession to re-group and pass, which effectively delayed the procession and consequently the graduation ceremony itself”.
According to the defendants, the Executive Committee of the Academic Board, which is chaired by the vice chancellor, met to discuss the March 13, 2010 incident, and decided among other things to convert Commonwealth Hall into a graduate and mixed gender hall of residence, thereby endorsing the vice chancellor’s determination.
They further argued that the University Council met on May 13 and 14, 2010 and agreed by consensus that Commonwealth Hall would be converted into a graduate mixed gender hall effective from the beginning of the 2010/2011 academic year, adding that “it is perfectly within the purview of the University Council’s authority to make the decision to convert Commonwealth Hall into a graduate and mixed gender hall”.
They further argued that the decision to restructure the composition of Commonwealth Hall was neither illegal nor unconstitutional as the university fully complied with and intended to comply with the relevant laws and regulations and to carry out same within the confines of its authority.
According to the defendants, the university had, prior to the March 13, 2010 incident, been deliberating on how to prevent the rowdy, ritualistic behaviour and hooliganism Commonwealth Hall had increasingly become notorious for, adding, “The University has a duty to maintain its image which has been increasingly tarnished by the incessantly bad behaviour of the members of the Commonwealth Hall, protect other students, its properties and generally maintain a conducive atmosphere for both staff and students.”