<<Print>>

The Ghana Association of University Administrators (GAUA) has called on Parliament to discontinue the passage of the Public Universities Bill.

According to a press release issued by (GAUA), the Association bemoaned events surrounding the bill.

“The Ghana Association of University Administrators (GAUA) is very disturbed about the recent rhetorics and public discourse on the Public Universities Bill from the Minister of Education and some members of Parliament and the subsequent media reportage on the issue.

GAUA has been part of the stakeholders who submitted memoranda and eventually met the Parliamentary Select Committee on Education on the Bill. However, if the recent rhetorics and the document we have sighted as having been laid before Parliament for consideration is anything to go by, then it will not be wrong on our part to conclude that the position of GAUA on the draft Bill has not been considered as any useful input. 

“Based on current developments and having studied the content of the Bill as laid before Parliament on the 15th December, 2020 for consideration, and recognising that the recommendations submitted by GAUA and other stakeholders have not been considered, we strongly state that the consideration and the passage of the Bill must be discontinued.”

Read full statement below:

POSITION ON THE PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES BILL
 
THE GHANA ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS (GAUA) POSITION ON THE PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES BILL

The Ghana Association of University Administrators (GAUA) is very disturbed about the recent rhetorics and public discourse on the Public Universities Bill from the Minister of Education and some members of Parliament and the subsequent media reportage on the issue.

GAUA has been part of the stakeholders who submitted memoranda and eventually met the Parliamentary Select Committee on Education on the Bill. However, if the recent rhetorics and the document we have sighted as having been laid before Parliament for consideration is anything to go by, then it will not be wrong on our part to conclude that the position of GAUA on the draft Bill has not been considered as any useful input. 

As a critical group in university management and administration, we are extremely surprised, worried and disappointed about the deliberate attempt to sideline GAUA as a key stakeholder in university governance and operations.  This could even be seen clearly in the composition of the proposed Council which has all the Unions on our campuses representing except GAUA. This is very unfortunate, unfair, discriminatory and utmost disregard for GAUA, the most critical group when it comes to university governance and administration to be treated this way.

OUR DEMAND

Based on current developments and having studied the content of the Bill as laid before Parliament on the 15th December, 2020 for consideration, and recognising that the recommendations submitted by GAUA and other stakeholders have not been considered, we strongly state that the consideration and the passage of the Bill must be discontinued. 

Kwabena Antwi-Konadu (FChPA, FCMC, APR) Felix Adu-Poku (APR)

NATIONAL PRESIDENT GENERAL SECRETARY

Issued on behalf of NEC and all members of the Ghana Association of University Administrators

For the avoidance of doubt, we hereby publish GAUA’s position on the Bill as submitted for consideration dated 8th April, 2019.      

RE: INVITATION TO MAKE INPUT INTO DRAFT UNIVERITY BILL 

We have examined the document and wish to make the following comments:

a. Generally, the Draft Bill appears quite comprehensive as it takes into account all the pertinent issues relevant to management and administration of public universities.

b. The draft touches on the following issues among others:

i. Establishment of a public university;

ii. Governance of a public university;

iii. Administration of a public university;

iv. Internal organization of a public university; and 

v. Accountability.

c. The draft bill further makes the following proposals for managing public Universities.

i. Harmonization of the operations of public university:

ii. Harmonization of Statutes regulating the internal organization of public universities;

iii. Provision of a Centralised Admission Platform;

iv. Appointment of a Chancellor by Government;

v. Establishment of governing Council with majority of the Membership (more than 55%;5 out of the 9 voting members) nominated by government; and 

vi. Taking away the representation of staff Association on Council.

d. Of particular interest to GAUA are the following:

Section 3: The University Council

3(1). The Composition of Governing Council

It is understood that a governing Council is constituted by representation from “members of the university”, and the general public or civil society, which makes Council very inclusive and diverse.

The Composition of Council as proposed seeks to take away the inclusiveness and diverse character and rather give government an absolute power and control over the governance of public universities. It seeks to disregard the role and place of other key stakeholders including the Alumni Association, the staff Associations, and Conference of Heads of Assisted Secondary School (CHASS), where the major raw materials for the university are produced.

3(1) a & c. Government Nominees

The Bill provides for a Chairperson of Council, nominated by the President and also four persons nominated by the President. It is not clear whether or not the Chairperson is counted among the four nominees. This must be stated clearly to avoid possible litigation.

3(1) a. Appointment of Chairman of Council

We believe that government being the major stakeholder and financier of public universities must be allowed to show prominence in the affairs of the university by appointing the Chairperson of Council. The major concern is the practice whereby Council becomes dysfunctional whenever there is a change of political power. The situation has been unhealthy and should be addressed.

It should also be mentioned that, the Bill appears not to be consistent with Article 195(3) of the Constitution of Ghana. The Article provides that “the power to appoint persons to hold or act in an office in a higher body of higher education, research of professional training, shall vest in the Council or other governing body of that institution or body.

3(5) Dissolution of the Governing Council

The Bill seeks to empower the President to dissolve the Governing Council of a public university and set up a new one under a certificate of emergency. The Bill, however, did not define what constitutes emergency. This is likely to leave the government to unduly interfere in the affairs of the universities. This could be unhelpful.

Having regard to the recent attempt by the government to dissolve the Council of KNUST as a result of students’ disturbance and the resistance by staff associations and civil society groups, we believe this provision is an attempt to give the government opportunity to control Governing Council of the universities. This, in our humble view is a threat to academic freedom.

Section 5: Functions of Council

Section 5(h) mandates the council to make professorial level appointments, on the recommendation of the Appointment Committee of the Academic Board, as may be prescribed by the Statutes. Does it mean that other appointment within the Convocation would not be considered by the Council?

The Bill is silent on which body is responsible for the appointment of other members of Convocation (i.e., Assistant Lecturer, Lecturer, and Senior Lecturer’s grade and their equivalent grades for Administrative and Professional staff).

Section 22: Appointment of other Staff

The Bill proposes the appointment of other staff to be the responsibility of Council. Section 5 could be expanded to take care of this Section. If however, the section remains, we propose that Management of the University should be mandated to appoint the other staff which should be clearly defined as junior and senior staff, as it pertains currently.

Section 12: Chancellor of a Public University 

The bill proposes the appointment of a chancellor of a public University to be the responsibility of the President. We believe that the Chancellor’s office is honorific and 

should be devoid of any political “color”. We humbly submit that the appointment to that office should not be the responsibility of government.

Section 14 (4), 15(3), 20(4), and 21(3): Terms of Office of Principal and other Key Officers

The Bill proposes a uniform Terms of Office of three (3) years for the Chairman of Council, Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and Director of Finance.

We believe that such an arrangement whereby all the officers have the same term of office could be problematic. Such an arrangement does not provide smooth transition of administration and could jeopardise institutional memory and continuity.

In our view, the three-year term of office for a Vice-Chancellor is too short to actualize any meaningful vision. WE suggest the four years, in the first instance, should be retained.

It should also be noted that, unlike the appointment of the vice-Chancellor and Pro Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and the Director of Finance’s appointment are career appointment which, in our view, should not be tied to that of the Vice-Chancellor. There is the need to bring differentiation to forestall the tendency of all exiting at the same time.

Section 17: Composition of Academic Board

The Bill proposes the composition of the Academic Board for a Public university as follows:

a. The Vice-Chancellor who shall be the Chairperson:

b. The Pro Vice-Chancellor;

c. Deans and Vice Deans;

d. Directors of School, Institute and Center;

e. Heads of Academic Department;

f. Professors and Associate Professors;

g. A representative each of:

i. College;

ii. An Academic Department;

iii. A School;

iv. An Institute; or

v. A Center

h. The Librarian of the University;

i. The Registrar of the University;

j. Nine other members of the University, five of whom are non-teaching.

For those who had adopted the collegiate system of administration, the Office of the Provost forms an important part of government structure in the universities. The Bill is however silent on the Office of Provost and did not list the officers among the membership.

For example, in KNUST the following are the administrative structures:

a. Seven (7) Colleges;

b. Eighteen (18) Faculties; and 

c. Ninety-nine (99) Academic Departments

Going by the proposed composition of the Academic Board, in relation to be administrative structure at KNUST for instance, the Membership of Academic Board would be about 300.

Obviously, a membership of 300 for a Board is too unwieldy and could be ineffective.

It of interest to know that KNUST has experienced this challenge and had put in place mechanisms to downsize the Academic Board to a manageable size. We believe the university should be allowed to determine the composition of the Academic Board, through its statutes, to suit their circumstances.

Section 34: Centralised Admission Platform

GAUA is of the view that this is another illustration of taking away academic freedom from the universities. We believe that the current admission system has served the universities well and it is in consonance with best practices in admission into Higher Education institutions around the globe.

Section 36: Procedure for Enacting Statutes

This provision seeks to take away the autonomy and academic freedom from the public universities. The Universities are different and should be given the opportunity and freedom to develop their statutes to suit their own circumstances and in accordance with best practices.

Section 40: Property and Contract

The ability to enter into agreement is the function of the Council which the Bill seeks to take away. In our opinion, the responsibility should be vested in the Council and not the Minister. This provision may inhibit free expansion of facilities and infrastructure.

Section 42: Policy Directives

The Bill seeks to empower the Minister of Education to issue policy directive to the public universities. This could be dangerous and could stifle the initiative of the public universities. It seeks to make the Minister of Education ultimate decision maker rather than their Councils for all public universities.

The seemingly politicisation of public universities could be unhealthy and could suppress the academic freedom enjoyed by the public universities.

Explanatory Memorandum

The Association does not think that the Explanatory Memorandum offered convincing justification for reviewing the existing Acts establishing the various public universities and harmonising them.

Conclusion

In our opinion, the proposals in the draft policy are not desirable for the following reasons:

i. The Bill in its current form seeks to make all the public universities look the same. It does not seek to promote differentiation which is necessary to make the institutions have their unique character;

ii. The Bill seeks to take away all incentives that promote competition and initiative;

iii. The Bill seeks to politicise the governance and management of public universities;

iv. The Bill does not reflect a shared commitment to protecting the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy of public universities;

On the basis of the foregoing, GAUA wishes to respectfully request the Ministry of Education to take a second look at the proposals for the good of public universities and higher education, in general.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the document.

As indicated, the above was submitted earlier through the Executive Secretary, Vice Chancellors Ghana, culminating in GAUA being invited by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Education to make a presentation accordingly. At that meeting, GAUA raised issues on:

1. The Constitutionality of the Bill

2. Corporate Governance 

3. The obvious political interference, machinations and manipulations amongst others