Minority’s Call for Education Minister’s Intervention, Baseless!

The current impasse at the University of Education, Winneba (UEW), is purely a legal issue, and therefore, the courts are the only avenue to address the issue.

The Member of Parliament (MP) for Effutu, the Hon. Afenyo Markin, started pointing out this brewing legal issue as far back as 2013, when the current minority NDC was in power. The MP for Effutu made all the ‘noise’ in the media, and what did the NDC gov’t at that time, did about it? Absolutely, sod all! Mahama’s catchphrase was, “mintie obiaa” (I won’t listen to anyone). This is what has landed UEW in the current legal tussle. All the issues in contention at the Winneba High Court, are founded on actions taken by a governing council, that legally had no mandate from November 2013 to 6^th January 2017.

It is acknowledged that the then NDC gov’t, headed by John Mahama, wrote to the defunct council, authorising it to continue in office, until a new council was reconstituted, but made it clear that, the ‘illegal’ council, was not to take any ‘major’ decision. The question now is, what constitutes a major decision? The defunct council awarded degrees, recruited, confirmed, recommended, and appointed staff. It further awarded contracts, some of which were in accordance with the Public Procurement (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 663) (PPA), and other contracts, the legality of which is being contested in court. So, my question to the minority NDC in Parliament is, how does a Minister of Education intervene in a matter, that is purely legal, and where the Ministry he is heading, is a second defendant in the suit brought against UEW by Mr. Supi Kwayera, and represented by Lawyer Afenyo Markin in court?

If the NDC was intervening in the affairs of the courts when they were in power, then they should not expose themselves to the wider public, by calling on an NPP gov’t Minister to do same. There is no law in Ghana that provides that, a Minister of State has powers to interfere in the affairs of a court.

The ‘strike action’ declared by UTAG UEW, has no legal basis. This is so because, the local President of UTAG UEW did not seek a resolution from the membership before declaring his so-called total strike, immediately after the injunction was placed on the two (2) officials by the High Court. In a similar vein, the failed application by UTAG UEW to join the suit as an interested party was not authorised by UTAG UEW membership. These two (2) acts were unilateral decisions pursued by the President of UTAG UEW, for reasons that can be guessed by anyone.

It is a fact that, the current Pro VC, who has been directed by the High Court to act as the administrative head of UEW until the substantive case is decided somewhere in October this year, also got promoted to a full professor by the defunct governing council. Suffice is to say that, he wasn’t the only one who got promoted or employed by the same defunct governing council, and is not a subject of the injunction. The UTAG UEW President, is a head of department, and his authority emanated from the same defunct governing council. I was recruited in August 2014, and confirmed by the same defunct governing council in 2016, and yet, an injunction is not placed on me, neither the UTAG UEW President.

The reason why the VC and the Finance Officer have been restrained by the High Court from continuing to perform their official functions, is founded on the evidence supplied by counsel of the claimant, Hon. Afenyo Markin, to the effect that, certain contracts were awarded to companies or entities fronting for the VC and FO, or their cronies, and those contracts were not awarded in accordance with the provisions of the PPA 2016, as amended. It is alleged by the claimant that, huge payments have been made to these companies, so the court being satisfied with the evidence made available to it, had no option than to grant the equitable remedy of injunction, so as to protect public funds and possibly prevent tampering with evidence.

An injunction is not granted by a court lightly. Unless compelling evidence is made available to the court that, unless a person is compelled or stopped from doing something, a greater harm or damage would be caused, the court will not grant it.

The UTAG UEW President, is not alleged to have awarded contracts in breach of the PPA 2016, as amended, or authorised payments to contractors who executed those ‘illegal’ contracts, so why should an injunction be sought against him? This same principle applies to the Pro VC, and all other UEW staff, whose authority emanated from the defunct governing council, and who nonetheless, are not the subject of the injunction, placed on the VC and the FO of UEW by the High Court, Winneba.

I therefore urge the NDC minority in Parliament, the President of UTAG UEW, and other like-minded individuals, to try doing some reading on issues before running to the media to expose their intellectual deficiencies.

Alhassan Salifu Bawah
(Son of a peasant farmer)