The former Vice-Chancellor questioned the authenticity of the communication because it originated from a personal email address and gave him only a few working days to respond. Through his lawyers, he later informed the University that he was outside Ghana and requested that any interaction with the committee be postponed until April 30, 2023, when he expected to return.

Prof. Afful-Broni further complained that despite informing the University of his unavailability, he received another invitation requiring him to appear before the committee on February 9, 2023. He argued that the University proceeded with its investigations without hearing his side before issuing a letter on May 22, 2023 outlining findings of financial impropriety and referring him to the University’s disciplinary process.

He consequently asked the High Court to quash the findings and prohibit the University from pursuing disciplinary proceedings, arguing that the investigation was tainted by procedural unfairness, lack of jurisdiction and errors of law.

UEW’s defence

The University resisted the application, maintaining that the investigations were prompted by issues identified in the Auditor-General’s audits for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 financial years, which were completed after Prof. Afful-Broni had left office.

UEW also defended its decision to use the Acting Registrar’s personal email address, explaining that it was intended to preserve confidentiality and avoid unnecessary speculation within the University community.

The University further argued that it had made reasonable efforts to secure Afful-Broni’s participation, including offering him the option of appearing virtually through Zoom. According to UEW, the former Vice-Chancellor failed to take advantage of that opportunity, leaving the committee with little choice but to proceed with its work.

Court finds breach of natural justice

Justice Datsomor acknowledged that the University had invited the applicant to appear before its investigative committee. However, he found that once the University had been informed that Afful-Broni was outside the country and had proposed a return date, fairness required the committee to exercise patience and allow him a reasonable opportunity to participate.

Instead, the judge observed, the University fixed another hearing for February 9 despite knowing the applicant remained abroad. The judge described the University’s conduct as effectively granting the applicant the right to be heard “with the right hand” while taking it away “with the left hand.” He further remarked that while justice should not be unnecessarily delayed, administrative bodies must also guard against rushing proceedings at the expense of fairness.

At page 14 of the reported decision the Court held that, “To me, the conduct of the Respondent in that manner is akin to affording the Applicant the right to be heard with the right hand and taking it back with the left hand, an act of approbation and reprobation at the same time. I believe the Respondent's investigative committee felt that do accede to the request of the applicant will delay the process and consequently deny justice. Though I concede that justice delayed is justice denied, the converse of that saying dubbed "justice hurried is justice buried" is equally true and hold sway in this matter”

Per the decision of Datsomor J., the University’s actions amounted to procedural impropriety and violated Article 23 of the Constitution, which requires administrative bodies to act fairly and reasonably. The court concluded that Prof. Afful-Broni had been denied the opportunity to present his case before adverse findings were made against him.

Relying on established Supreme Court authorities on the right to be heard, Justice Datsomor held that the breach of the audi alteram partem rule rendered the University’s findings a nullity.

University still had power to investigate

Despite ruling in Afful-Broni’s favour on procedural fairness, the court declined to accept his contention that retirement shielded him from the University’s disciplinary framework.

Justice Datsomor pointed to clauses in the UEW Statutes, 2020, which expressly state that disciplinary procedures apply to offenders both within and outside the University.

The judge noted that those statutes remained valid law and had not been declared unconstitutional. Ironically, he observed, the statutes had been enacted during Prof. Afful-Broni’s own tenure as Vice-Chancellor.

For that reason, the court held that UEW was fully clothed with jurisdiction to investigate alleged misconduct relating to his time in office despite his retirement.

Final orders

In the end, the High Court held that only one of the applicant’s grounds succeeded, which was breach of the rules of natural justice. Although his arguments on jurisdiction and error of law failed, the successful ground alone was sufficient to warrant the grant of certiorari.

Accordingly, the court quashed the University’s findings contained in the May 22, 2023 letter on alleged financial improprieties involving Rev. Fr. Prof. Anthony Afful-Broni.

Justice Datsomor made no order as to costs.

CLICK TO READ/DOWNLOAD FULL DECISION