UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI

Ref. No. RG/S/1/Sf.1

VICE-CHANCELLOR
25th June, 1973.

RELEASE OF THE JOHNSON REPORT

I refer to your letter VC/S/39/Vol. of 23rd June, 1973 to the
President of the Students’ Representative Council and forward a copy
of a draft White Paper for approval.

It is essential that agreement on the final form of the White
Paper be reached before Wednesday, 27th June, 1973 to enable my office
to produce and release it together with the Johnson Report on that day.

SIGNED
REGISTRAR

C.C.

Chairman and Members of the University Council.

UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI 

COUNCIL PAPER ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY INTO STUDENTS’ DEMONSTRATIONS OF MARCH 22 AND 23, 1973 

1. INTRODUCTION 
2. The Report of the Committee which the Chairman of the University Council appointed to enquire into: 

(a) the circumstances leading to students’ demonstrations at the University on March 22 and 23, 1973; 

(b) any other relevant matters which in the view of the Committee ought to be investigated; was considered by the University Council at meetings held on April 18, 1973 and June 22, 1973. 

2. At the meeting of April 18, the University Council decided to refer the memoranda which the Committee had received from the Students’ Representative Council, the Academic Staff Association and the Acting Resident Medical Officer in which various issues had been raised, to appropriate University Boards and Committees for their study and advice. The University Council rather than appointing a Special Committee as recommended by the Committee to look into the issues raised in the memoranda preferred to use the existing statutory Bodies and Committees such as the Academic Board, Swimming Pool Committee, Residence Committee, etc. and requested the relevant statutory and other Committees to submit their reports for Council’s consideration at its meeting on June 22, 1973. 
3. The University Council noted the Committee’s report that there was no dispute from the evidence before it that the demonstration had as its purpose the bringing into sharp focus the main grievances of the student body ….. the demonstration was considered a favourable means of voicing out their grievances”. The Committee was itself unable to investigate these grievances which were embodied in the memoranda submitted to it by the students. These grievances have been investigated by the appropriate statutory Boards and Committees and their reports were considered by the University Council at its meeting on June 22, 1973. 
4. THE EVENTS OF MARCH 22 AND 23, 1973 
5. FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE 

(a) The Committee “after considering all the evidence available on the issue find as a fact that Mrs. Tackie slapped Mr. Sulemana with her sandal on the day in question”. The Committee finds also that even though Mrs. Tackie was provoked by the behaviour of Mr. Sulemana ….. she should have exercised sufficient restraint. The University Council observes that the facts as presented in the Report of the Committee do not give sufficient details of the sequence of events leading to the slapping incident. All the same, relying on the findings of the Committee, the University Council regards the whole affair as unfortunate and regrettable. 

(b) The Committee is of the opinion that the Registry erred in making Dr. Appiah’s letter available to Sulemana and the President of the Students ‘Representative Council. It is the view of Council that in accordance with normal disciplinary procedure, Dr. Appiah’s letter was made available by the Registry to Mr. Sulemana and the President of the Students’ Representative Council in good faith. 

(c) The Committee’s opinion is that the matter should have been referred to the authorities of Mr. Sulemana’s Hall of Residence and that the Administration should not have taken direct action by inviting Mr. Sulemana and the President of the Students’ Representative Council to see the Registrar. The University Council is unable to accept this view since the incident happened outside Mr. Sulemana’s Hall of Residence, and since it involved a second party who is not a member of the University. The University Council has asked the Residence Committee on which students have representation to review the Students Regulations and submit recommendations to it through the Academic Board, on disciplinary procedures in relation to events which happen outside the Halls of Residence.

(d) The University Council endorses the Committee’s commendation of the Students’ Representative Council “for its attempts to convince the student body to honour the Registrar’s invitation,” and having failed in these attempts, their advice that the demonstration should be peaceful. The University Council also endorses the Committee’s finding that the students should be “faulted for overruling the Students’ Representative Council”. 

(e) The University Council accepts the finding of the Committee that the students should have waited for the outcome of the meeting with the Registrar, and that their failure to do this “stamps the demonstration as improper.” The University Council endorses the statement of fact by the Committee that “even if an unacceptable decision came from the office of the Registrar, there were other laid down avenues for seeking redress”. 

(f) The University Council endorses the conclusion reached by the Committee that the demonstration of the 22nd of March was not justified”. The Council finds also that there was no justification for the demonstration of the 23rd March during which students broke into Dr. Appiah’s consulting room and interfered with the bus conveying children to the Nursery School.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE 

(a) The University Council accepts the Committee’s recommendation that the entire student body be made to pay for the cost of damage done to property, as a result of the students’ demonstration. The Council notes that the Committee requested and received from the Resident Engineer an estimate of the cost of repair of University property damaged during the demonstration. The University Council also called for estimates (verified by the Resident Engineer and the Transport Officer) of damage caused to the private property of Prof. Tackie and Dr. Appiah. The Council notes that cost of damage to property, (excluding that of Prof. Tackie who declined to have his damaged property including his fowls killed during the demonstration assessed) has been estimated by the Resident Engineer and the Transport Officer at 2730.88. The University Council has directed that this amount be paid by the entire student body by deduction at source as restitution for the damage they had caused to property. 

(b) The University Council appreciates the spirit behind the recommendation that “there is a moral obligation on those concerned to atone for the insults and loss of good name”, and has asked the Vice-Chancellor to make every effort to restore peace and accord. However, Council finds the terms of this recommendation difficult to understand, particularly the vague reference to atonement. Nevertheless Council appreciates the spirit behind the recommendation that peace and accord be restored, and had asked the Vice-Chancellor as far back as April 18, when it first considered the Report, to use his good offices to achieve this objective. 

(c) At the request of the University Council, the Vice-Chancellor has appointed a three man Committee (with one student representative) to study and make recommendations on student/staff relations. On the alleged genuine fear by students of victimisation, the Vice-Chancellor was asked by Council to find out from the students what they really feared. The Vice-Chancellor’s report to Council is that the fears are without foundation. 

(d) The University Council is unable to accept the recommendation of the Committee that “a person or Committee be appointed to receive all future grievances and complaints”. The University Council calls attention to all sections of the University community – staff, students and workers to the existence of statutory procedures for seeking redress to grievances, and admonishes all to avoid taking the law into their hands.

Read more