Open Letter to the Minister of Education, GTEC and Chairman of the Governing Council, University of Cape Coast

We write to respectfully express concern over the Governing Council’s purported intention to direct the Vice-Chancellor to relinquish his office upon attaining the age of sixty (60) on 18th September 2025.

While the Council’s commitment to institutional continuity is appreciated, such a directive would contravene the express provisions of the University’s governing Statutes and risk undermining the integrity of our governance framework.

According to Statute 13.8 of the Statutes of the University of Cape Coast

(2016) :
“Except as may be otherwise provided in special cases by Council, a senior member shall retire from his or her appointment and all other offices held by virtue of the appointment at the end of the academic year in which he or she attains the retiring age o f 60 years.”

Similarly, Statute 13.7 provides that:
“Except as may be otherwise provided in special cases by Council, a senior member appointed to a full -time post in the University on a renewable contract shall retire from his or her appointment and all other offices held by him or her in the University by virtue of the appointment at the end of the academic year in which the contract expires.”

These provisions are unequivocal: retirement from appointment and associated offices occurs at the end of the academic year, not on the date of birth. The academic year, as defined in Statute 1.0, spans 1st August to 31st July.

Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor, having reached the statutory retirement age during the 2025/2026 academic year, is due to retire on 31st July 2026, not on 18th September 2025.

This principle – commonly referred to as the “roll-over” or “roll-on”– has been consistently applied to previous Vice-Chancellors of the University, including:

• Prof. Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang, now Vice President of the Republic of Ghana
• Prof. D.D. Kuupole
• Prof. Joseph Ghartey Ampiah

Each of these distinguished leaders served until the end of the academic year in which they attained the age of 60, in full compliance with the Statutes.

To now depart from this precedent without compelling justification would not only be legally indefensible but also ethically troubling.

Moreover, should the Council proceed with prematurely removing the current Vice-Chancellor, it must be prepared to apply the same standard to all other senior members similarly situated. For instance, the Director of Finance, Mrs. Elizabeth Obese, is expected to attain the age of 60 on 23rd November 2025. Similarly, the Ag. Director of ICT, Mr. John Kwame Eduafo Edumadze, will attain the age of 60 on 15th November, 2025.

These are just two examples out of 19 Senior members who are still in active service due to the “roll-over” policy and are set to retire at the end of the 2025/2026 academic year. If the principle of immediate retirement upon reaching the age threshold is to be enforced, then consistency demands that all others in comparable positions be subject to the same directive. Anything less would be discriminatory and risk rendering the governance of the University ungovernable. However, even asking for the same treatment is not to say that the contemplated action of relieving the Vice-Chancellor of his post on the date he turns 60 is justified under our rules as Senior Members in the University of Cape Coast.

It is imperative that the Governing Council recognizes that it operates within the bounds of the law.

Matters currently under judicial review, pending before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, must be allowed to proceed without interference.

The presence of a former Supreme Court Justice at the helm of the Council should reinforce, not undermine, the commitment to the principles of natural justice and respect for the judiciary and its processes.

The Council’s decision to refer dockets to the Office of the Attorney General raises serious concerns. This action not only risks compromising the independence of the University but also signals a troubling departure from the spirit of academic freedom.

In light of this, it is expected that the Council will refrain from assuming judicial authority or delivering pronouncements on matters that are sub-judice. Due process must be respected.

The Council must await the full and fair determination of these cases by the courts before taking any further action.

To do otherwise would be to erode public trust in both the University’s governance and the rule of law.

We therefore urge the Governing Council to uphold the Statutes and preserve the integrity of our institutional processes.

The University’s credibility rests on the fair, consistent, and lawful application of its own rules – not ondiscretionary interpretations that erode trust and stability.

The Court should have a final say on this matter.

We want peace on the UCC campus and not violence.

Thank you.
Concerned Academic Senior Members