SECTION 2 – MONITORING OF STUDENT ACTIVITIES AND INFORMATION FLOW IN THE UNIVERSITY 

After this account of the events in the University from 11th to 18th January, we would like to make a few observations on the monitoring of student activities and on information flow in the University. Our observations on other issues discussed in this Chapter, such as the severity of the police attacks, injuries sustained, damage caused etc. will be found in Chapters Two and Three. 

Part I – The Role of Senior Members 

There was evidence before the Committee that posters advertising the symposium scheduled for the 12th January were soon in Halls of Residence, some Departments and various other places on the campus on the 11th, but it would appear that these excited very little interest among Senior Members, especially those having special responsibilities within Halls of Residence. While we do not wish to suggest that there should be a system of general surveillance of student activities, nevertheless we consider it regrettable that Hall and other University officials did not have their curiosity sufficiently aroused to make them want to inquire into the exact nature of the activities planned by the students. More than once in the past student leaders had been called to a meeting either at the Vice-Chancellor’s office or at the office of the Dean of Students with a view to finding out the exact implications of rumours of some impending student activity. Indeed, such a meeting did take place as recently as the first term of this session at the Vice-Chancellor’s office to discuss rumours of activities planned by students “in sympathy” with those students who had failed their examinations. There was testimony that at a meeting with Senior Tutors of Halls in the afternoon of 12th January, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor informed the meeting that he had heard a “rumour” that the students had planned a symposium for that evening, to be followed by a demonstration the following day, and he had urged the Hall officials present to “keep their ears to the ground.” Indeed, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor went further to ensure that a message was also left with a member of the Central Administration to “keep his ears to the ground.” The following day (13th January) this member was on the campus from about 7.30 a.m. and followed the student procession to the Main Gate, where he remained watching events until the arrest of Mr. Owusu-Ansah at about 11.15 a.m. However, no attempt was made to contact student leaders on the matter before the 13th January. Regrettably, various University officials contented themselves with treating the indications of impending student activity as “mere rumours”. The Committee considers it rather unfortunate that:- 

(a) No serious action was taken with respect to the information received by certain University officials on the planned student activity.

(b) Up to about 1.00 a.m. on Friday, 13th January the Pro-Vice-Chancellor had been working in his laboratory in the Department of Botany, unaware of the student procession, the first police invasion, and the kidnapping of the policeman. 

Furthermore, evidence before the Committee suggests that certain University officials had learnt from students about the kidnapping by noon on the 13th. In the light of this the Committee thinks that steps could have been taken much earlier to persuade the students to release the policeman and to keep the Police informed of the action being taken to trace the hostage.

The Committee considers that this situation reveals not only regrettable weakness in the University’s machinery for monitoring student activities, but also a general lack of awareness among Senior Members of their responsibility, as individuals, and as officials, to relay vital information to the appropriate authorities. 

Part II – The Role of the Security Service 

At least three members of the Security Service reported for duty at the Main Gate at about 6.00 a.m., and were in a position to see every stage of development of the crisis. At about 9.50 a.m., the Senior Security Officer himself got to the Main Gate and instructed his guards “to keep eyes on the activities of the crowd and to be capable of identifying anyone who does what.” It did not, however, occur to any of these guards to report to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor or other senior official the tension that was building up at the Gate, and all the members of the Security Service interviewed were firm in their conviction that apart from preventing and investigating thefts, their role in situations such as demonstrations was a passive one of observation and chronicling. 

Part III – The Role of Hall Porters 

The Committee was rather disappointed by the apparent lack of appreciation by Porters in some Halls, particularly Legon and Commonwealth Halls, of the seriousness of their responsibilities in respect of the recording of incidents occurring in the Halls. In Legon Hall, although there was some record of the Police invasion in the Daily Occurrence Book, vital information such as the imprisonment of the kidnapped policeman in Room E.15 of the Hall had not been noted, and the lame explanation offered for this serious omission was that it had not been possible to identify the students involved. In Commonwealth Hall the position was worse. When the Committee visited this Hall on 4th January, 1978 – i.c. 11 days after the invasion of 13th January – there was not a single entry concerning the incidents in the Daily Occurrence Book. Yet it was from this Hall that the procession began on 13th January, 1978. This was the Hall which received the greatest Police attention during the second invasion of 13th January. It was in this Hall that the kidnapped policeman was rescued on 13th January and his belt found on Sunday, 15th January. It was again this Hall that was placed under guard throughout the night of 15th January. 

Read More

University Of Ghana Report On The Committee Of Enquiry Into The Disturbances Of 13th January, 1978:

•  Introduction
• Section 1: An Account Of The Events