|
JUDGMENT:
Plaintiff, who is an employee of
Ghana Education Service, had
applied and was admitted by the
University of Ghana/defendant,
to pursue a course of study in
Soil Science at the Doctor of
Philosophy [PhD], level in
2001/2002, academic year.
The pliant showed that,
plaintiff was required to submit
a research proposal audit/study
Molecular Biology course, and
conduct a research into his
chosen field of study.
He alleged he
conducted Greenhouse and
Laboratory experiment and
analysis at the University’s
ecological laboratory on all the
objectives of the research
proposal from January 2002 to
December 2004, using the
methodology stated in the said
proposal.
Furthermore,
plaintiff alleged that a
Supervisory Committee was
appointed to supervise his
research work and that, he had
met the committee, on three
occasions, submitted results and
photographs of his research work
to the committee. And that
drafts and abstracts of the
thesis were submitted, and
seminars were conducted as part
of the course requirements,
without any adverse findings
from the Supervisory Committee.
In addition,
plaintiff alleged his work had
earned him recommendation from
the Supervisory Committee, in
the form of research
collaboration with University of
Melbourne, Australia and yet
when he submitted copies of his
thesis, four thesis presentation
forms with the attached fee,
statement, to the Dean of
Graduate Studies, through the
Head of Soil Science Department,
in 2005 but the thesis has not
been examined up to date.
The pliant in
paragraph 12, 13, contain
assertions of reasons why the
thesis has not been signed. And
in paragraph 14, plaintiff cited
section 33.2(1) of the
Regulation on Graduate Study and
University Examination, and
averred that, it has been
flouted. In paragraph 15,
plaintiff averred to the effect
that the defendant/University be
ordered to compel its employees
to comply with its own
regulation in respect of this
dispute.
Paragraphs 12 and 13
are reproduced below:
“12: Plaintiff says further that
due to some personal
differences he had
with his major supervisor, one
Professor S.K.A. Danso, the said
Professor Danso,
conspired with his
co-supervisors one DR Yaa Dufie
Osei and withdrew their
supervisory duties at the
end of his research work”
And in paragraph 13,
plaintiff averred:
“13: Plaintiff again avers that
DR Stella Asuming
–
Brempong and DR John
Ofosu-Anim in solidarity
with his major supervisor have
refused and or failed
to sign the thesis to pave the
way for its
examination.”
In an amended
statement of defence filed by
the defence, it admitted
paragraphs, 1, 2, and 3, which
are averments in respect of the
fact that plaintiff had been
admitted to pursue a PhD,
degree, in Soil Science.
Again in paragraphs
4 and 5, defendant, admitted in
part, the averments of
plaintiff, that he had asked for
an extension of his three years
PhD programme or course duration
by twelve months, also admitted
is the averment that plaintiff
had submitted a research
proposal. But ill health as the
reason for the extension and the
assertion that he had audited
satisfactorily a course in
Molecular Biology in the
Biochemistry Department were
denied.
Furthermore,
defendant admitted that a
supervising committee had been
appointed to supervise
plaintiff’s research work, and
that even though he met the
committee on a number of
occasions, whatever ‘research’
results and photographs
submitted by plaintiff were not
proven to be original.
And that serious adverse
comments were made about the
authenticity of the drafts and
abstracts of the thesis
submitted by the plaintiff.
In paragraphs 11:
“In answer to paragraph 11 of
the statement of claim
the defendant says that the
document submitted as
thesis by the plaintiff has not
been examined
because his supervisors have not
signed them for
good reason, as the plaintiff
has refused to
authenticate them as genuine
original works.”
And in paragraph 12, it is
stated:
“The defendant denies paragraph
12 of the
statement of claim
and says that the plaintiff was
insulting
to the said Professor. S. K. A.
Danso for daring to make
comments on his academic
performance yet the defendant
bent
over backwards to appoint fresh
supervisors for the
plaintiff”
In paragraph 13,
defendant averred that the
supervisors refused to sign the
thesis as there were serious
doubt, about its genuineness and
originality which the plaintiff
was called upon to prove but he
failed to do.
In conclusion, defendant denied
that defendant has violated
section 33.2 (1) of the
Regulation on Graduate Study and
University Examination or any
other regulation, and therefore,
the plaintiff is not entitled to
his claims.
Below are the claims
plaintiff is seeking:
1.
A declaration that the failure
and/or refusal of plaintiff’s
supervisors to sign his thesis
to pave the way for its
examination is unlawful.
2.
An order to compel the defendant
to order it’s employees
appointed as plaintiff’s
supervisors to sign the thesis
in question to pave the way for
it’s examination.
3.
Special Damages of GH¢20,000.00
4.
General Damages, and
5.
Cost.
At the close of
pleadings seven (7) issues were
set down as the triable issues:
1.
Whether or not plaintiff’s
application for one year
extension at the end of the
third year for the completion of
his research and thesis was due
to ill health.
2.
Whether or not the plaintiff
audited a course in Molecular
Biology in satisfaction of the
course requirements.
3.
Whether or not the plaintiff
conducted Green-house and
laboratory experiment and did
analysis at the University’s
ecological laboratory on all the
objectives of the research
proposal starting from January,
2002 to December 2004, using the
methodology stated in his
research proposal.
4.
Whether or not the results and
photographs of plaintiff’s
research submitted to the
Supervisory Committee were
original;
5.
Whether or not plaintiff’s
Supervisory Committee made any
serious adverse comments about
the authenticity of the drafts
and abstracts of the thesis
submitted by the plaintiff.
6.
Whether or not plaintiff has
refused to authenticate his
thesis as genuine original work,
and
7.
Any other issue arising out of
the pleadings.
There are a few
facts that are not in
controversy. These are the fact
that, plaintiff applied and was
admitted as a full time student,
in 2001/2002, academic year, to
pursue a course in Soil Science
at the PhD level based on a
Research proposal he submitted
to the Board of Graduate
Students.
Also not in dispute, is the fact
that the course duration is
three years, with 12 months
extension, with a possibility of
further extension for a year.
The fact that plaintiff applied
for 12 months extension, and it
was granted, and he submitted
his thesis in June 2005, is not
in doubt.
Furthermore, the fact that an
impasse developed between
plaintiff and the Supervisory
Committee, which defendant tried
to resolve is not in doubt.
Following the above,
issue one (1) listed on the
Application for Direction is not
a contentious one that needs
consideration by this court.
Plaintiff had applied for and
got his course duration extended
for him for 12 months and
ill-health was cited as the
reason.
The Research
Proposal which has been accepted
by the defendant/University of
Ghana, requires that, plaintiff
will study/audit Molecular
Biology at the Masters level and
at the Biochemistry Department,
and whether this was done,
plaintiff has to prove it.
He must also establish that he
had conducted research at the
Ecological laboratory, and
submitted results, photographs
etc to the Supervisory
Committee. And supervisory role
or duty that the committee has
to play in terms of the
regulatory framework of the
defendant/University are the
facts in controversy, as
encapsulated in issues, 2, 3, 4,
5, and 6.
These issues, touched on stages
that every student at the PhD
level must pass through, in
order to earn a degree. There
are duties imposed and
responsibilities thrusted on
plaintiff and defendant or its
agents/officials to carry out,
in conformity with the laws and
regulations, which establish the
University, and which for that
matter bind students and
officials alike. Plaintiff
carries the burden of proof on
these issues, it may shift to
defendant in appropriate cases.
In view of the
reliefs endorsed, one issue
which is so formulated as to
cover the procedure to follow in
a Ph Degree programme will be
most appropriate context within
which to outline, review and
analyse the facts/evidence led.
Thus in exception of
the work of the Examination
Board of the Graduate School,
whether plaintiff has satisfied
all the conditions that will
entitle him to an award of the
PhD, degree, he had pursued in
Soil Science, this is the core
issue in controversy.
And the
interpretation of Regulations: 9
and 31, 33 and 36 etc in EXHIBIT
“D” is also crucial to the
resolution of the traible
issues.
It is subsumed under the general
clause, as in number seven (7)
namely, any other issues arising
out of the pleadings.
Plaintiff showed
that he had been admitted as a
student, to pursue a full time
course in Soil Science, at the
PhD level. And EXHIBIT “A”, “B”
and “C” which are graduate
admission letter, dated 23rd
July 2001, Acceptance of
admission letter dated 1st
August 2001, and University
Registration form, respectively,
are the exhibits, plaintiff
offered in support to his
admission as a student.
The testimony of plaintiff is
that, he submitted a research
proposal, which was very
detailed, and that it was an
original proposal that nobody
had ever conducted research in
that area in Ghana and
elsewhere. He tendered EXHIBIT
“E” in support, the exhibit
showed that the research at the
PhD level, is on BRADYRHIZOBIUM
REQUIREMENT OF PROMISCUOUS AND
NON-PROMISCUOUS SOYABEAN
GENOTYPES.
Furthermore,
plaintiff asserted as part of
what he was required to do, he
audited/studied aspects of
Molecular Biology at the masters
level [M-Phil], and that it was
non-examinable, he tendered
EXHIBIT “F”, “G” and “H” in that
regard. These are Molecular
Biology Level 600, course area
and reading list, Hand notes
written by plaintiff and
pamphlets.
The other aspect of
plaintiff’s testimony is what he
did in terms of research into
his chosen and approved area of
study.
And by way of recap, the course
is Bradyrhizobium requirement or
preference of two soyabean
genotypes. These genotypes
being promiscuous and
non-promiscuous soyabean
genotypes. He alleged he was
investigating bradyrhizobium
which is a soil bacterium, and
that he mobilised research
materials, as soil samples from
all ecological zones of Ghana,
i.e. savanna forest and the
coastal savanna.
It is his case that he had
collected thirty four (34), soil
samples.
On the location of
the research work, his evidence
showed that it was the
Ecological Laboratory, which is
an inter-disciplinary
laboratory, located at
University of Ghana, was where
he did the research.
The evidence showed
that, plaintiff collected two
soyabean types from an
Irrigation Company in the Upper
East Region, and that the
defendant/University of Ghana,
provided the rest of what he
called, the cultivers.
Plaintiff’s
testimony in – chief contain
further and detail definition
and objectives of what he was
investigating, when he stated as
follows:
“The Bradyrhizobium is a soil
bacterium that nodulates or
causes nodulation on
the roots of soyabean plant.
Inside
the nodules the bacterium is
able to fix, to trap nitrogen
from the air converts the
nitrogen into amino acids and
then into plant protein which is
translocated to the seed
shoot and the root. Inside, the
seed the protein which is
fixed is edible by
human-being and livestock and
the
residue can be used as
fertilizer for the soil……
Inoculation is an introduction
of something into something.
So in this case I was
introducing the bacterium into
the
soyabean which will then cause
the soyabean to nodulate
instead of allowing the
bacterium inside the soil to
nodulate. I was thus causing
the bacterium to nodulate
the
soyabean. Thus I was
controlling the experiment”
Furthermore,
plaintiff’s testimony contains a
detail account of the ten (10)
objectives of his research
work. He called them the
hypothesis. The first
hypothesis, he stated, as
whether one could find the
occurrence of Bradyrhizobium in
our soil or whether there are
any Bradyrhizobium in our soil
which could nodulate our
soyabean at all.
Population density of these he
said was another objective he
investigated. Then the
isolation of the bacterium from
the nodules, and then refining
them, this plaintiff asserted is
the authentication of the
analysis and identification of
which bacterium actually causes
the nodulation.
It is plaintiff’s case that he
did cross-innoculation, of the
bacterium on the soyabean plants
and vice versa.
Competitive ability
Nodule Experiment, plaintiff
alleged was another objective of
his research, and that the
effectiveness of isolates are
tested in t his type of
experiment.
In addition
genetical identity of the
isolates, plaintiff stated was
one of his objectives too.
It is plaintiff’s
case that, he conducted all the
experiments as required of him,
made observations, which he
recorded, and took photographs
of various stages of the
experiments.
He tendered, EXHIBITS “Q”, “S”
and “T” in that regard.
Another significant
dimension of plaintiff’s
evidence is what he said about
the SUPERVISING COMMITTEE, and
his work at the ecological
laboratory. His evidence is to
the effect that Professor Joseph
Kofi Akyea –Danso or [Professor
S. K. A. Danso], who is a Soil
Microbiologist and Soil
Ecologist by Profession, was his
principal supervisor and the
Director in charge of the
Ecological Laboratory. Dr.
(Mrs.) Stella Asuming-Brempong
whom he described as a
biochemist, and a
teacher/lecturer in the
Biochemistry Department, and Dr.
Yaa Dufie Osei, whom he referred
to as Head of Biochemistry
Department and also John
Ofosu-Anim, a Crop Scientist,
these four, he stated are the
members of the Supervisory
Committee.
As regards the
functions or duties of the
Supervisory Committee this is
what plaintiff said:
“These four form the
supervisory committee. Their
role was to advise
me on the requirements which I
needed to take for
the course thesis area and the
thesis topic. Their role
was advisory”.
Plaintiff in further description
of the functions of a
Supervisory Committee,
differentiated it from the
Examining Board of the school of
Graduate Studies. And led in
evidence plaintiff delivered
himself as follows:
“Yes, My Lord, the two are not
the same. The Supervisory
Committee was an
Advisory Committee, in fact in
the case
of a Doctorial Candidate the
supervision was very, very
minimal and according to the
regulation. Section 9.22
spelt it out that they were to
advise me on course
requirements, thesis area and
thesis topic”.
Further still,
quoting Section 33.2 of Exhibit
“D” which is a Handbook of
School of Graduate Studies,
published in 2003, plaintiff
stated the other function of the
Supervisory Committee,
concerning thesis, is that they
shall sign thesis submitted by
the student.
Plaintiff offered
oral testimony and tendered
exhibits, all in an attempt to
establish the fact that his
research work at the Ecolab was
done as required of him and
therefore, the members of the
Supervisory Committee must sign
the thesis, so that it could be
examined.
EXHIBIT “L”, which
is the Ecolab, user-book was
tendered by plaintiff. I have
examined the pages, and I have
seen his name and signature
therein with names and
signatures of other researchers,
who visited the facility.
EXHIBIT “M” and assertions in
support were offered by
plaintiff, to show that, he had
set up the relevant equipment
and material and conducted the
research and recorded his
observations as in Exhibit “M”
supra.
He added he conducted some
aspects of the research at the
Green-House, which is not far
away from the Ecolab. EXHIBIT
“Q” photographs and commentary
on them is also what plaintiff
is offering to support his claim
that he has conducted the
research properly.
Besides, the
physical demonstrations, it is
plaintiff’s case that, he
conducted seminars, where the
results of his research were
discussed, with him leading the
discussion, using overhead
projector, chalk and chalk-board
photographs and transparencies
in the process.
He asserted he had conducted
four seminars on eight
occasions. He gave the dates as
follows: November 2002, May
2003, 26th April,
2004 and May 2005. And EXHIBIT
“S”, “T”, “U”, “V”, “W”, “X” and
“Y” are pieces of evidence
proffered by plaintiff to show
that in addition to successful
seminars, he held meetings with
the Supervisory Committee, and
no adverse comments or findings
were made on his work and
presentations at those fori.
In continuation of
plaintiff’s claim to the reliefs
endorsed, he offered the
following exhibits, and made
assertions in support of them.
It is plaintiff’s case that, he
earned the respect, commendation
and recommendation to others
from the defendant’s officers
and yet his thesis had not been
passed on for examination.
These exhibits are;
1, “AA” – a
letter of recommendation by Dr.
S. Asuming- Brempong, it is
stated 18th December
2002
2, “BB” – An
application for promotion in
Ghana Education Service [G.
E. S] – signed by DR. V.
Antwi-Danso – Dean of
Students.
3, “CC” – Confidential
Assessment of plaintiff by Dr.
(Mrs.) Asuming –Brempong, dated
August 2003. In this exhibits
Dr. Asuming-Brempong stated, she
had known plaintiff for two and
a half years, and that he was
academically good, emotionally
matured, open minded, and a team
player.
4, “DD” – is also
referees Report on plaintiff
authored by Professor
S. K. A. Danso, he wrote that,
he knew plaintiff at Cape Coast
University, and at University of
Ghana where he was a PhD Student
and that, plaintiff is
intelligent student and spent
long hours working
on his research.
The
document is dated 19th
August 2003.
5, “EE” – is
evidence of appointment as a
Teaching Assistant, which
plaintiff offered as an act or
conduct which gave approval of
his work and status.
6, “FF” – in
this document, plaintiff sought
to show that he was
given a responsibility as an
invigilator by the defendant,
whilst he was
studying in the University.
7, “SS” – is
a document, which is a progress
report, made on plaintiff, by
defendant from the office of the
Dean of Graduate
Studies. It is dated 7th
February 2002.
At the concluding stages of
plaintiff’s evidence-in-chief,
he touched more on the work of
another body, he called the
Examination Board. Earlier, he
had mentioned the Examination
Board, and drew a distinction
between, it and its function, in
relation to the Supervisory
Committee and he spoke about the
conflict that arose. In this
account, plaintiff led in
evidence by counsel undertook
the task of interpreting the
University of Ghana/Defendant’s
regulations.
The salient parts of this
testimony and interpretation
have been outlined below.
Q: Whose duty
or whose statutory role was it
to determine the authenticity or
the originality of the PhD
thesis.
A: It is a
Panel of Examiners consisting at
least two internal and two
external examiners who will
examine the thesis and report to
the Graduate Board, and the
Graduate Board will in turn send
it to the Department where I
conducted the experiment and
they will in turn invite me to a
viva, oral examination before
declaring the results. It is
the duty of the panel of
examiners and not he
supervisors.
Q: I am
asking whether the thesis has
been signed or passed for
examination by them and can you
tell the court why it has not
been signed.
A: My Lord
there was a conflict with my
major supervisor who then
conspired with the other members
to drop their pens and even went
as far as conspiring with other
colleagues of the University.
Plaintiff asserted
his supervisors do not have the
RIGHT, to refuse to sign his
thesis, he continued as follows:
“….In
refusing to do so they were
trying to cease the
powers of the
Examining Board, they were
preventing the thesis from being
examined to
determine the truth of the
matter, whether I was
doing
well or no. So they were
preventing the
examiners from doing their work
and the section
under which they were compelled
to sign the thesis
is Section 33.2(1) ……”
[He stated Section 33.2(1) of
the HandBook on Graduate Studies
is the relevant regulation which
has been flouted].
As regards the conflict that
arose, eventually giving rise to
this suit, this is what
plaintiff said, about his
encounter with Professor S. K.
A. Danso.
Q: In your
encounter with Professor Danso
which has been stated as being
insulting, what actually
transpired.
A: The basis
for that conflict is that the
Professor was manipulating, was
monopolizing, in other words, he
wanted me to do what he wanted
concerning the research work but
this was an independent and in
fact a research work which
should be done by a PhD student,
he should not be coached on what
he should do. I have done my
masters of Philosophy (M-Phil)
and I knew what I was doing so
whenever I told him these were
the objectives and this is what
the University asked me to go
and research, he felt that I was
cheeky so he wanted to coach me.
……… if
you coach me what to do, then
the degree will be meaningless
that is the crux of the matter.
In conclusion, it
could be gleaned from the
testimony that, it is
plaintiff’s case that Molecular
Biology formed just 2.7% of the
whole of his research work, and
after expiration of his twelve
months extended course duration,
he ceased to be a student, and
had gone back to his employers –
Ghana Education Service. He
denied being aware of a
reconstituted supervising
committee.
He was
cross-examined on assertions he
made on his research work,
including the mobilization of
finance, materials as soil
sample, anti-biotics, the actual
experiments, as well as his
attendance and commitment to the
research work at the Ecolab.
The succinct parts of these will
be looked at pretty soon.
However, plaintiff
made fresh and different
assertions, as he was confronted
by probing questions from the
defence counsel.
Firstly, on his insistence that
his supervisors must sign his
thesis, it was put to him that
his interpretation or
understanding of the regulation
was wrong. He stated that apart
from the role given to the
Supervisory Committee as in
section 9.2.1, 9.2.2 and
33.2(1), the committee has no
other power vested in them and
therefore they have no power to
refuse to sign his thesis.
Plaintiff conceded that the only
role, the committee has is that
they must sign the relevant page
on the thesis document to the
effect that it has been
supervised.
This question and answer is
important. It is reproduced, it
is on Regulation 33.2(4).
Q:
It talks about “it
shall consist of the candidate’s
own
account; there shall
be a declaration to the effect
that the
thesis is the candidate’s own
work produced or researched
under supervision”. Have you
listened carefully to these
words? So since you agree that
they have a role to play,
and the declaration which you
yourself read that it should
be your own work and
which you finally admit that
they
have a role to play. Now if the
work is not the candidates
own work, should they sign?
A: Then he
would not have been allowed to
start the work.
When this question, reproduced
supra, was reframed in a
different way, this is the
answer plaintiff gave:
“If it is proved by the
examining Panel that is not the
candidates own work, then they
return the thesis or else
something else can happen……..”
Plaintiff also gave this answer
to the question under
consideration.
“My Lord they will
have to sign and allow the
thesis to be examined by
examiners “
As plaintiff
described the function of the
Supervisory Committee in terms
of the relevant regulations, he
is seen as asserting the
committee has no right to refuse
to sign, that they have no role
but must sign that they have a
role, that is that they must
sign the thesis once it is
presented to them and pass it on
to the Examination Board.
Plaintiff maintained this stance
when suggestions about
probability of forgery,
plagiarism and coping others
work were raised with him.
Still on this issue of signature
of the committee members,
plaintiff confidently declared
that they have nothing to find
out about his work, and that all
that they have to do is sign,
and that they cannot declare
that something is forgery,
except it is examined. When
plaintiff was asked whether the
committee is supposed to read
through his thesis before
signing, he said this:
“My Lord I don’t
know whether they
were to read
through ` or not”.
Somehow, plaintiff
had a change of mind and said he
knew the committee was expected
to read before signing and if
they have comments the comment
cannot come to him but to the
Graduate Board and they cannot
obstruct the examiners from
doing their work.
It was put to him thus:
Q: I am
putting it to you that by the
proper interpretation of the
University of Ghana Graduate
Studies Rules the EXHIBIT “D”,
by subsection 33(1)(4) on
submission of thesis, the
supervisors have a duty to see
to it that the thesis you have
submitted is your own original
work and that you have not
plagiarised your work.
A: My Lord
they have already found out that
the thesis was original they
have not got a duty”.
If these are honest
and appropriate answers, and the
rational interpretation of the
regulations cited, this court
will pronounce on it later on in
the judgment.
And away from the
issue of signature, plaintiff
admitted his research work was
done with American and Asian
Soyabeans, being propagated in
Ghanaian soil. It was put to
him that it was incumbent on his
supervisors to check the
methodology he used because,
similarities in his result with
the work of Dr. Fenning, raised
suspicion, especially as he
failed to produce original
photographs or plates on his
molecular biology research.
All these plaintiff denied.
The defence suggested to
plaintiff that the approval
process of his research proposal
required that other scientists
will read it, before it is
accepted, and that Professor S.
K. A. Danso was part of it.
Plaintiff sought to deny this
too, he gave various answers,
and ended up saying, he doesn’t
know whether he went through his
proposal or not.
It was also suggested to
plaintiff by his own account
that having just walked to
Ernest Chemist and purchased his
research anti-biotics, the
active ingredients in it may not
be right, plaintiff did not
accept this suggestion.
Indeed there was a heated
exchange on the type and source
of anti-biotic plaintiff used,
he gave answers from which an
inference could be drawn, to the
effect that, apart from
Professor Danso, the other
supervisors were either
Biochemist, Crop Scientist or
Soil Chemists and therefore they
were not all that competent in
his field of research. But the
defence insisted the Supervisory
Committee was competent and has
power to insist on the best
practice in the area of research
under consideration.
Besides, from a long line of
questions and answers, the
defence has established that
plaintiff gave 1956 and 1959 as
his dates of birth. Plaintiff
admitted that his dates of birth
is receiving some review from
SSNIT, where the issue has
cropped up, it was put to him
that he is a dishonest person,
but he put the problem on the
door step of his parents/father
whom he said was an illiterate.
Still on cross-examination of
plaintiff, the hint of the
defence, of the defendant has,
could be seen and plaintiff
continued to emphasize and
assert his case.
The procedure for submission of
thesis and the reasons why his
thesis had not been signed, and
has remained unsigned were
raised in series of questions.
The fact that, it is the
signature of members of the
committee, that will constitute
the authentication of his result
and the work he had done all
came up.
These are some answers plaintiff
offered.
He asserted having signed and
submitted his thesis to the Head
of Department, it is for the
Head of Department to process it
and forward it to the Graduate
School.
He claimed the Graduate School
wrote a letter stating the
supervisors must sign his
thesis, so they sent it back as
required by Section 33(2) of the
relevant regulation.
He continued that, he has signed
the column which he is required
to sign, and that was an
indication that, what he
submitted was an original work.
Besides, he stated
the committee members have a
personal grudge with him hence
their refusal to sign. The
above is the re-echo of the
conspiracy assertion that he had
made against the committee
members.
In response to
questions that touched on the
need to protect the integrity
and image of the University of
Ghana and the similarity that
plaintiff’s work bore with that
of Dr. Fenning, plaintiff denied
that there was any similarity in
his research and that of Dr.
Fenning, he criticised the
latter’s work, and wondered why
his work was approved when it
lacked vital component that a
research work must have.
He accused the
Supervisory Committee of
tribalism and suggested when two
members withdrew, initially two
remained and he had continued
his work to the end. He denied
knowledge of reconstitution of
the committee so that he could
conclude his thesis.
When he was confronted with the
fact that he was aware of the
reconstitution of the Committee,
so that he could properly
conclude his thesis and submit
same, plaintiff denied knowledge
of any such letter dated 25th
October 2005.
He also offered these answers:
“My Lord I would not
know, I am not aware of the
letters now he is
briefing me because as far as I
am concerned, June
2005, I have finished my thesis
and submitted it so I
would not after that, know what
they were doing on campus
there concerning my problem
which was not existing.”
Plaintiff denied writing to
defendant on the question of
reconstitution of the
Supervisory Committee, he
alleged his signature must have
been forged. He even stated
that after June 2005, he had
left campus, and that if there
was any correspondence, where he
has been written to, and he
giving a reply, then it must be
correspondence between the
defendant, and a GHOST.
The record showed
that defendant denied, the
accusations of conspiracy,
personal hatred and grudge and
tribalism, asserted by the
plaintiff.
PW1 – James Kwadwo Kudeha and
PW2 John Paul testified for
plaintiff. Their testimony on
the aggregate only showed that
plaintiff had gone to various
locations to take soil samples
and had been seen working at the
ECOLAB/GREEN-HOUSE.
The issue of the
plaintiff auditing a course in
Molecular Biology, conducted
laboratory and the Green-House
research on all the objectives
of the research proposal and
submitted original work to the
Supervisory Committee, and
indeed all the triable issues
must be assessed and weighed,
taking what the defendant and
its witnesses have also said
into consideration.
Thus, if plaintiff denied and
contested the fact that
Professor S. K. A. Danso,
contributed or made input to the
decision of, the
defendant/University to accept
his Research Proposal this must
be tested.
Whether, he wrote letters of
commendation and then turned
round to state the contrary for
no good reason, is another
primary fact. If he and others
were tribalists, conspired and
exhibited personal hatred
towards plaintiff this must be
investigated.
The opinion of members of the
Supervisory Committee on the
quality of plaintiff research
work, the techniques employed
and the integrity of the results
of the research are evidence
which are relevant and
admissible to determine whether,
the research had been conducted
in conformity with the
methodology the
defendant/University had
approved of.
Another primary issue is who
authenticates the work of
plaintiff, does he authenticate
his own work.
The process of writing and
submission of thesis, has
plaintiff and defendant followed
the regulations as in the
HandBook for Graduate Studies?
These and more are the primary
facts that must be found before
the court can make its mind on
whether parties have discharged
the burden of pursuasion on the
issues that require proof.
DW1, Professor S. K. A. Danso,
gave his professional
qualification and background to
include the fact that he holds
PhD in Soil-Micro Biology and
had on two occasions been a
lecturer in the Agric – Faculty
of University of Ghana, A
research Scientist at the
International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture Ibadan,
Nigeria and also a Senior
Scientist at the Ghana and
International Atomic Agency in
Vienna –Austria.
His evidence showed
that he knew plaintiff when he
was an M-Phil – Student at the
University of Cape Coast in
1988, but it is noted plaintiff
denied, knowing him because, DW1
was a lecturer in University of
Ghana, whilst he studied at Cape
Coast University.
DW1 evidence showed that
plaintiff had approached him
before in respect of research
work that he intended doing, and
later he got enrolled and worked
at the Ecolab. [Ecological
Laboratory].
Professor S. K. A.
Danso, stated the Research
Proposal – Topic as plaintiff
did, and mentioned the other
members of the Supervisory
Committee.
He asserted that, as plaintiff’s
supervisor his role was to make
sure that his research work is
credible and this they sought to
do as a team.
It must be noted
plaintiff stated, Professor S.
K. A. Danso cannot play such a
role and that their work was
advisory only and that he is not
bound by their advice. This
witness gave a lecture on the
topic plaintiff was researching,
and stated the actual research
work was to be done by
plaintiff.
The next major and
material assertion DW1 made was
that, he was unable to supervise
plaintiff’s work, because
whenever he told plaintiff
something the response or
reaction was full of hostility,
and at point he felt, plaintiff
will need a different
supervisor.
This is exactly what
he said:
“Yes My Lord, and to the point
where I felt that as somebody
who had achieved so much in all
modesty. I would say so because
I won the gold award
from the Ghana Academy of Arts
and Sciences, I have just
been elected a fellow of the
African Academy of
Arts and Sciences and I am
waiting for the Third World
Academy of Arts and
Sciences award and to be at
loggerheads with my
student and my student to be
insulting me when I
thought I was trying to help
him, I just had to
withdraw.”
The record showed
that all other members of the
Supervisory Committee, had
testified to the effect that
plaintiff had shown insulting
attitude in words he used on
DW1. This would be looked at in
more detail later. Therefore
unless it is part of the
conspiracy theory propounded by
plaintiff, which has not yet
been proved, then a student
cannot exhibit conduct of
insubordination towards his
supervisor(s).
Again, was it his
manipulating and monopolysing
disposition as alleged by
plaintiff, or the allegation
that DW1, always wanted to coach
him, a situation he did not
accept, that led to what DW1,
has narrated above?
The testimony of DW1
showed that, he submitted a
withdrawal letter, dated 18th
June 2004, and reasons for
accepting to help or supervise
plaintiff’s work and the
decision to quit, have all been
laid bare. This is EXHIBIT
“8”. It showed that, Professor.
S. K. Danso, was plaintiff’s
external, Examiner for his
M-Phil thesis at University of
Cape Coast.
He wrote:
“The results of the microbiology
aspects presented by Mr.
Aloa were really
strange. Significantly, for the
sandy soils
of the Tono area in the Northern
Region. Aloa obtained
BRADYRHIZOBIUM J A PONICUM cell
counts of more than
106 per gram soil.
This would be a world record”
The exhibits showed
that plaintiff employed methods
and techniques which cannot be
understood by any
microbiologist. He wrote that
he was of the view that
supervision of his work was not
that effective, and instead of
failing the thesis, he
recommended that all
microbiology aspect should be
deleted. And to have him as a
PhD Student at University of
Ghana, he found this as an
opportunity to give him that
microbiology aspect he needed.
EXHIBIT “8” showed
that, DW1 made an input in the
Research proposal of plaintiff,
hence the need for plaintiff to
audit or study some aspects of
microbiology.
If plaintiff didn’t
know how he passed his M-Phil,
what DW1 said and EXHIBIT “8”
which has not been discredited
contain the reasons and more.
This exhibit gives an insight
into why plaintiff’s posture
that, auditing microbiology was
below him, is most unfortunate.
Plaintiff displayed arrogance by
showing that he is above being
thought. The list of Reading
materials and Books he alleged
consulted contain in them
lessons that he learnt or must
be learned by all students.
And to hold that Biochemist,
crop-scientist are not competent
to supervise his work, is
another finding I have made,
about plaintiff’s testimony,
which is strange.
Furthermore, EXHIBIT
“8” contains assertions of poor
methods plaintiff adopted, when
he inundated the Green-House
with water to avoid watering
everyday, and the implications
of that on the result he might
come up with, and remedical
measures given or advised which
plaintiff did not take.
For instance plaintiff was to
harvest the plants so affected
and replant, them, it is alleged
he harvested, but did not
replant.
I suspect that is
one of the monopolysing and
manipulating conduct of DW1,
plaintiff had complained about.
EXHIBIT “LL”, the
Ecolab-User-book showed that
within a certain period he was
regularly there, and so the
allegation that wasn’t seen
there as in EXHIBIT “8” under
review is not wholly correct.
But words as: “it is up to
Professor Danso to believe in”
he wants believe in”
And also, “Professor Danso has
just decided not to reason with
me.”
which words were shouted in a
wild manner at Supervisory
Committee level have been
proven. If these did not appear
on prescribed forms which the
supervisors were to fill and
endorse, is not material and
does not vitiate the cogency of
the evidence given.
In continuation of
assessment of DW1’s evidence in
light of plaintiff’s claims,
there are other
documents/exhibits, which
pre-dated, EXHIBIT “8” which is
Professor Danso, letter or
notice of withdrawal.
These are EXHIBITS “5” and “6”
dated 5th April 2002
and 25th May 2002,
respectively. In EXHIBIT “5”
Professor Danso, wrote stating
that, he wished to withdraw his
earlier endorsement of Mr.
Aloa/plaintiff as a Teaching
Assistant.
He gave reasons, which interalia
are that, as at that date/time,
when plaintiff had spent almost
a whole academic year on his
PhD, project he had not
accumulated any tangible data,
and to allow him do other
activities, will affect his
course work and duration.
And in EXHIBIT “6”,
the need for plaintiff to
improve the quality of his
research work and show total
commitment, is stated Professor
Danso/DW1, wrote in 24th
May 2002, how he felt about
plaintiff’s work.
He wrote: “I
am afraid I do not want to bear
unnecessary
responsibility for
your inability to complete your
thesis, or do so on
time, and so I have to decide
soon on
what to do if this attitude of
yours does not undergo a
phenomenal change.”
This letter was addressed to
plaintiff, and copy placed on
his file. It is noted that DW1
– Professor S. K. A. Danso,
continued to be plaintiff’s
major supervisor until he
withdrew on 18th June
2004.
The three documents read
together did not convey a
message of one who is out to
sabotage his student, let alone
hatching a plan that will
de-rail his PhD programme.
The above must be
compared with EXHIBIT “DD” dated
19th August, 2003,
which is a letter/referees
report authored by DW1-
Professor S.K.A Danso, on
plaintiff. And also EXHIBIT
“AA”, dated 18th
December 2002 a letter of
recommendation, it was authored
by Dr. Asuming Brempong not DW1,
Professor Danso.
EXHIBIT “BB” on promotion of
plaintiff was authored by the
Dean of Students Professor
Vladimir Antwi Danso, and not
DW1 – Professor S. K. A. Danso.
The rhetorical question then is,
when did the conspiracy among
the Supervisory Committee
members begin, if they are still
giving favourable
recommendations about him.
I have not found bad faith
exhibited by DW1, this is not a
person to be tagged as
displaying tribal
considerations.
In any case, is plaintiff’s
Supervisory Committee, the same
as the committee that supervised
Dr. Fenning thesis, if they are
not the same, then the
accusation of tribalism falls
flat on that score as well.
The next primary
issue DW1’s evidence touched on
is the concern about the source
and type of antibiotic
plaintiff used in his research
work, he gave a detail account
of why plaintiff should not have
bought the antibiotic from any
chemical shop.
And that research result quite
apart from everything else must
merit publication in
International Journals of
repute.
In addition, he
testified to the effect that, he
had supervised thesis of so many
other students, including a
Professor in South Africa, the
Director of Soil Research
Institute, and asserted that he
had never had problems with his
students.
The above is evidence of good
conduct and professional
excellence being offered by DW1,
to counter and rebut,
plaintiff’s evidence of bias,
hatred and tribalism made
against him – DW1.
Besides, reasons as
stated in EXHIBIT “8” the
withdrawal notice, DW1 wrote, he
testified in court to the effect
that, he was not satisfied with
the way the research work was
going on or being conducted, and
results obtained. He continued
as follows:
“…whenever the committee met I
brought this out and
instead of him
accepting this in good faith, it
was just like
this ignorant person who needs
to be insulted.”
He gave plaintiff’s attitude
towards him as another reason
for his withdrawal. His
evidence showed that plaintiff
had written to him prior to
gaining admission in Legon, and
thereafter he had been on good
terms with him. He said he bore
him no grudge and that after the
insults, even though, he could
have made representations that
he should not continue in the
Department/Faculty, he didn’t do
that rather he was very much
desirous that, he could find
somebody else to work with so as
to conclude his thesis.
The following
witnesses also testified on
behalf of defendant/University,
they are:
DW2 Dr Julius Kwaku Amegakpor
DW3 Prof. Mark Kofi Abekoe
DW4 Dr. Stella Asuming-Brempong
DW5 Dr. Yaa Dufie Osei, and
DW6 Dr. Enoch Amartey
The testimony of DW2 and DW6,
were essentially on the
procedure to follow in
submission of thesis, and the
fact that defendant
reconstituted, the Supervisory
Committee, so that plaintiff
could conclude his thesis
presentation.
Whiles the testimony of the
other three [DW3, DW4 and DW5],
dwelt on detail account of the
research work, and what was
required of plaintiff.
What they have said
will be reviewed, and assessed
in light of cross-examination by
counsel for plaintiff. I shall
leave out, details which touch
on the interpretation of
University of Ghana Regulations
because, this court will do an
interpretation of the
regulation, as part of the
concluding aspect of this
judgment.
DW3, Professor Mark
Kofi Abekoe’s evidence showed
that in 2004, he became head of,
the Soil Science Department,
that he holds BSc Agric degree
and Diploma from Cape Coast
University, M-Phil Degree in
Soil Science from the University
of Saskatuan, Canada, and also
being a fellow of WARDA – i.e.
West Africa Rice Development
Association.
His real testimony
is to the effect that, upon
recommendation, the Supervisory
Committee, was reconstituted,
with Dr Asuming-Brempong,
Professor Ofosu-Anim, with
himself as chair, and the Dean
of Graduate School was written
to, and plaintiff was also
written to, but plaintiff
ignored the committee and never
interacted with it. See EXHIBIT
“11”.
Furthermore, on the
thesis itself, DW3 asserted that
plaintiff submitted it in his
office, as Head of Department
when he was out of Ghana on an
international assignment, and
that before this he had told
plaintiff regularize a number of
things about his thesis, namely
Annually Grasps were printed in
colour, but figures and finger
print about DNA analysis were in
photocopy black and white and
not legible, but plaintiff
ignored him/them.
In sum DW3 testimony
showed that he was dissatisfied
with parts of plaintiff’s
thesis, and method he chose to
present it, despite clear
direction communicated to him
verbally and in written form.
He tendered EXHIBIT “12”, to
show assistance he gave
plaintiff.
He continued that, as he had
disagreed with the content of
the thesis, if it goes for
examination and something is
found wrong about it, he will
have to share the blame, just on
the basis that plaintiff has
written and signed that the
content was accurate.
He said the Examination Board,
may decide to conduct the very
experiment, and if the results
recorded by plaintiff were not
confirmed, he would have ruined
his career, because, plaintiff
wants a PhD.
This witness stated
categorically that plaintiff had
not completed his thesis.
DW4, Dr. Stella
Asuming Brempong, who is senior
research fellow at the Soil
science department, University
of Ghana, stated she holds BSc
in Agriculture from University
of Ghana, MSc Degree in Soil
Science (Agronomy) from the
University of Philippine, and
PhD, from Michigan State,
University – USA.
She testified to the effect that
plaintiff was known to her, and
she was part of his supervisory
committee, when he enrolled for
his PhD Course, and that in the
first year plaintiff was
required to audit a course in
Molecular Biology. She asserted
his class attendance was
irregular.
She also gave reasons for not
signing the thesis presented by
plaintiff.
Firstly, she referred to page 82
of the thesis, and the picture
of the structured genomic DNA,
she said for ten years she has
done research on genomic DNA,
she illustrated what should have
been done and demonstrated the
unsatisfactory work plaintiff
did.
Secondly, she attacked the claim
that photographs as in page 78
of the thesis were original, she
demonstrated her doubts about
their originality.
On page 87, and the experiment
on requiring anti-biotics, she
stated there are different types
from the open market. She
stated storage temperature was
crucial and risk of inert
materials being present inthe
open market type and affecting
results in real.
Thirdly, DW4’s
testimony revealed personal
knowledge of contamination of
the ECOLAB, in respect PCR
identification, plaintiff was
required to perform in his
Molecular Biology course. She
added plaintiff was the person
who informed her about the
contamination of the laboratory,
and she tried to help him get
access to the ATOMIC ENERGY
research and the Biotechnology
laboratory, without success.
And given her personal knowledge
of Polymerge Chain Reaction
Machine, she had doubts about
this aspect of plaintiff’s
research work.
And yet another
reason given by DW4 for not
signing plaintiff’s thesis, has
to do with that aspect of the
thesis, that concerned the
amplification of 16SR – DNA
genes. She referred to pages
141 and 142 of the thesis, and
did a detail analysis of what
plaintiff has done. She
expressed her dissatisfaction
with what plaintiff presented as
his result, in such detail which
are unnecessary to recount in
this judgment.
However one illustration, she
gave will suffice, she stated:
“And then the competitive
experiment too, I think at least
about seven
isolates, how can he do
competitive
experiments with isolates.
These are micro organism you
cannot see. He should have
marked the isolates in a
way…”
In EXHIBIT “15” series too, DW4
gave detail comparative analysis
of plaintiff’s work on DNA and
what she did for her PhD, she
referred to page 82 and
illustrated the deficiencies
with what plaintiff did.
On the aggregate
Professor Stella Asuming
Brempong, gave not less than
eight (8) reasons why, she did
not sign plaintiff’s thesis.
The bulk of the reasons relates
to the research work. She
confirmed the insulting attitude
of plaintiff towards them as a
group and especially Professor
S.K.A Danso. And she explained
why she wrote EXHIBIT “CC”. She
stated plaintiff is intelligent
and academically good, as she
has stated in the confidential
report, but human-beings change,
because she found plaintiff’s
attitude to work had changed.
Professor Yaa Dufie
Osei, DW5, holds BSc in
Biochemistry, another BSc, MSc
Biochemistry and PhD in
Biochemistry.
She said she knew plaintiff and
she had been invited to be part
of a Supervisory Committee for
plaintiff PhD research work. It
is her case that the University
thought she has a speciality
from which plaintiff could
benefit and she was given a
formal letter to be part of the
committee in 2003.
This witness
testimony is also about reasons
why, she failed to sign the
thesis in question. The first
assertion she made is that,
plaintiff was required to
study/audit, aspects of
Molecular Biology, that she has
been teaching, at the M-Phil
Degree level, it is her case
that plaintiff’s attendance was
not satisfactory.
She also asserted, plaintiff
attendance at the ECOLAB, where
he was doing his research work
was not satisfactory, and that
the major supervisor also had
reason to complain.
The third reason is
also on plaintiff’s research
work, and specifically committee
hearings and discussions. It is
her case that plaintiff on
several occasions, will present
data and fail to explain them
when asked to do so.
And will in addition make
remarks which are derogatory.
She stated tempers had flared up
between plaintiff and the
principal supervisor – Professor
S.K.A Danso, over this attitude
of plaintiff as described above.
Furthermore, DW5’s
account is not made of
complaints, but assistance that
she tried to give to plaintiff,
and in furtherance of that, she
had gone to the laboratory to
ask the technicians to
co-operate with him.
She had this to say
too:
“One day I was in my office when
he came with a pouch
under his armpit
complaining that, ‘Madam, every
time I
say that people are sabotaging
my work you are always at
their defence……”
The witness said she found
plaintiff’s conduct very
strange. And this is what she
said in the dialogue:
“And you picked samples from the
freezer and kept them
in a pouch under your armpit and
took trotro….”
She testified to the effect that
the primers plaintiff brought to
show to her, were supposed to be
kept at minus 29 degrees. She
said these and more could affect
the results from the experiments
plaintiff was conducting.
In sum, she gave as
reason, her misgivings on the
approach and method plaintiff
had adopted towards his research
work, his abusive conduct on and
before, committee members, when
they tried to effect corrections
in his work, and the fact that
her integrity was at stake if
she remained as part of the
Supervisory Committee, as
reasons for withdrawing, and not
signing the thesis.
The case of
plaintiff as stated by his
counsel in cross-examination of
the defence witnesses, and
questions counter assertions
made by these witnesses which
are damaging to the case for
plaintiff shall be looked at
briefly.
And to start with
plaintiff counsel put it to DW5
- Professor Yaa Dufie Osei, that
auditing a course that she
thought was not examinable part
of plaintiff work and therefore
not compulsory.
DW5’s response was that that was
correct, but the course has
benefits for plaintiff. If this
is compared with what DW1-
Professor S.K.A Danso said
earlier and the finding made
thereon, plaintiff’s stance is
one unbecoming of a student.
The fact that
EXHIBIT “G” has been tendered
and evidence led on the fact
that he was regular at the
Molecular Biology lectures, if
that is the case, plaintiff must
recognize the importance of the
course to his work, and he must
not be seen as a student who has
no respect for University
regulations.
During
cross-examination the aggregate
of evidence showed that,
plaintiff has rebutted the
allegation that he has not been
regular at the ECOLAB. DW5 -
Professor Yaa Dufie Osei, had
retracted the assertion that the
ECOLAB User-Book was generated
because of plaintiff.
This court’s
assessment of DW5 is that on
testimonial factors as,
sincerity, memory, perception
and use of language she scored
very high marks, and appears as
a very credible witness. Her
testimony has been accurate, and
I hold that her evidence on the
ECOLAB-User-Book was
unintentionally mistaken piece
of evidence, that did not affect
her credibility.
Plaintiff sought to
show that, the Supervisory
Committee failed to do its work
as stipulated in EXHIBIT “D” the
regulations, by their failure to
fill prescribed forms and
forwarding them to the Graduate
School.
DW5’s response is
that the committee meetings
served that purpose and the Head
of Department has to fill the
forms as required. She was
candid to admit that some of the
rules may require of them to do
things which are new to
her/them.
Again DW5, denied
that no adverse report has been
made against plaintiff, she gave
answers that showed that,
plaintiff never accepted any
correction or direction and she
had to apologise personally for
his insulting behaviour on DW1 –
Professor Danso on several
occasions.
In respect of the
cross-examination of DW4 or
Stella Asuming Brempong, by
counsel for plaintiff, had
centered essentially on the
interpretation of the
defendant/University’s
regulation on the work of the
Supervisory Committee.
Thus page: 9. 2. 1 of EXHIBIT
“D” and Section 9(1) were quoted
at the commencement of the
examination. The witness tried
to explain their role as
supervisors vis a vis the
Examiners.
It is remarkable that not a
single reason she had given for
not signing the thesis has been
impungned. The issues of bias,
conspiracy and tribalism were
not even raised.
Turning to DW3 –
Professor Kofi Abekoe, he was
also cross-examined extensively.
Firstly, the
question of when a student is
supposed to conclude his PhD was
raised, and his response showed
that, 27 months is the minimum,
and (5) five years is the
maximum period. This was not
challenged.
Following from the above,
plaintiff’s declaration as in a
number of questions posed that,
plaintiff’s studentship expired
at the end of the extension of
12 months because he did not ask
for any further extension is
untenable, as he failed to deny
the course duration as given by
DW3.
Secondly series of
questions were asked by
plaintiff on the role of the
Supervisory Committee, he
disagreed with views espoused,
but accepted that the
independence of thought of the
student, must be respected.
Thirdly, the
cross-examination of DW3,
contained a challenge to the
legality of the reconstituted,
Supervisory Committee, he denied
and stated the Dean of Graduate
School is aware of it.
Fourthly his
competence as a member of the
Supervisory Committee, was
called into question, his
answers showed that he was
qualified because a wide range
of specialties from different
academic disciplines was a
proper requirement for a
Supervisory Committee, as it is
not issues peculiarly related to
the field of research in
question alone that would arise.
He gave examples of the
mobilization of the right soil
types as a case in point.
As pointed out
already whether his view on the
regulations quoted is correct,
will come from the
interpretation this court will
give.
Following from
above, these are the regulations
that require interpretation:
Regulations 9 and 31
9. SUPERVISION OF
GRADUATION STUDIES
9.1 A Graduate Studies
Committee shall be set up in
each Department,
School or Institute offering
graduate courses. The functions
of the committee
shall be to:
(i) advise
the students in the selection of
courses and formulation of these
topics
(ii)
recommend thesis supervisors to
the
Department
(iii) submit
at the end of each semester
progress report on each
student to the Board
of Graduate Studies through the
Head of Department.
(iii)
keep under review and make
proposals for the
overall development of graduate
programmes in the Department.
9.2
A Supervisor shall
be required for every
graduate
student in all Faculties,
Schools and Institutes
of the University. Where
necessary a co-supervisor may be
appointed to assist
the supervisor. It shall be the
duty of the Supervisor
to meet the student at regular
intervals and to
submit semester report
through the Head of Department
to the Board of
Graduate Studies.
9.2.1 In the case
of Doctoral candidates a
Supervisory
Committee of at least 3 members
shall
be set up. The committee shall
advise
the student on course
requirements, thesis
area and topic.
REGULATION 31: EXAMINERS AND
DETERMINATION OF RESULTS
31.2
Dissertation/Thesis
31.2.1 (i)
(ii) Doctoral
Degree, A panel comprising not
less
than four Examiners shall be
appointed by the
Academic Board on the
recommendation of the
Faculty Board
and the Board of Graduate
Studies to examine a thesis
submitted for a
doctoral Degree. The panel
shall consist of at
least two External and two
Internal Examiners.
(iii)
(iv)
31.2.2
A separate report, duty signed,
shall be submitted by each
Examiner to the Board of
Graduate Studies in respect of a
dissertation or thesis submitted
for either a Masters or a
Doctoral programme.
31.2.3
The Examiners’ report on a
dissertation or thesis shall
indicate as comprehensively as
possible whether or not the
candidate demonstrates a good
general knowledge of a
particular field of learning
within which the subject of
his/her dissertation or thesis
falls; whether or not the
presentation of the candidates
materials is satisfactory, and
whether or not the dissertation
or thesis meets the requirements
of the degree for which it is
submitted.
31.2.4
If a dissertation or thesis
submitted for a Masters or
Doctoral degree, though should
seem of a sufficient merit, the
Examiners may recommend to the
Board of Graduate Studies that
the dissertation or thesis be
referred and the candidate be
permitted to re-submit it in a
revised form within three months
in the case of an
MA/MPH, nine
months in the case of an
M-
Phil/LLM/MBA/MPA/MFA, or twelve
months in the case of
a PhD
31.3 Oral
31.3.1:
A candidate who submits a thesis
for a PhD/MD Degree shall be
examined orally. For this
examination, a panel comprising
not less than three including,
normally, one Internal Examiner
of the thesis and at least one
External Examiner of the thesis
shall be appointed by the
Academic Board on the
recommendation of the Faculty
Board and the Board of Graduate
Studies. The Chairman of this
panel must be a person other
than the candidate’s supervisor.
31.3.2:
31.3.3: If a
candidate for the
M-Phil/LLM/MBA/MFA/PhD/MD
degree fails to satisfy the
Examiners at the oral
examination, the
panel may recommend to the
Board of Graduate
Studies that the candidate be
permitted to represent the
dissertion or thesis and
submit to a further oral
examination within a period
not exceeding 6 months
specified by the panel.
In addition Section 33 is also
relevant, it is titled:
33. SUBMISSION OF DISSERTATION
OR THESIS
33.1: A
candidate shall submit the title
of his/her dissertation or
thesis for approval to the
appropriate Faculty Board of
Graduate Studies, not less than
three months before the
completion of the
thesis/dissertation or thesis
has been approved, it may not be
changed except with the
permission the Board of Graduate
Studies on the recommendation of
Department and the Faculty
Board.
33.2: After
completing his/her course of
study, the
candidate of Graduate Studies
through the Head of
Department a dissertation or
thesis which shall
comply with the following
conditions.
(i) Each copy of the
thesis/dissertation/project work
shall be signed by the candidate
and the
Supervisor/Supervisory
Committee.
(ii)
(iii) The dissertation or
thesis shall normally be
written in English
and the presentation must be
satisfactory.
(iv) A thesis submitted
for an M-Phil/LLM/MBA/MPA
/MFA or a doctoral degree shall
consist of the
candidate’s own
account of his/her research.
There shall be a declaration to
the effect that
the thesis/dissertation is the
candidate’s own
work produced from research
undertaken under
supervision.
It may describe work done in
conjunction with the candidate’s
Supervisor provided that the
candidate states clearly his/her
share in the investigation and
that his/her statement is
certified by the Supervisor. A
paper written or published in
the joint names of two or more
persons shall not, normally, be
accepted as a thesis. Work done
conjointly with persons other
than the candidate’s Supervisor
shall be accepted as a thesis in
special cases only; in such
cases, the approval of the
Faculty Board and of the Board
of Graduate Studies shall be
required.
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
34: PRESENTATION OF
DISSERTATION OR THESIS
36: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE
GRADUATE DEGREE
A higher degree appropriately
designed shall be
awarded on a
candidate who has been properly
admitted to the University, has
followed the approved
course of study over the period,
and has fulfilled both
the University and
Faculty/Department requirements.
The interpretation
of various sections of
regulations on Graduate Studies
has arisen. And it is one of
the issues set down for
determination.
Interpretation of
Document/Statute/Constitution
[i.e. DSC’s], is a process of
determining the legal meaning or
normatic message of a legal
text, it is an attempt to
extract the normative message,
from a legal text and to apply
same to a particular set of
facts or situation. From this
stand point, every legal text
requires interpretation.
In most cases, the
normative message of the text is
easily ascertained from its
plain meaning in context so that
interpretation is without much
difficulty. Thus in a certain
broad sense, DSC’s are routinely
construed or interpreted by a
wide range of persons – judges,
clerks, registrars, civil
servants, student,
parliamentarians, etc. when they
have to decide on the meaning,
scope or effect of a provision
of a DSC’s in order to apply
them in the course of the
discharge of their
responsibilities or in a given
situation.
When the provisions
are plain they pose no
difficulty, but often
interpretative difficulties
arise, as seen in this case.
The plaintiff and his counsel
have sought to put meanings on
various sections of the
regulations on graduate
studies. There is the need
therefore, to invoke, in greater
depth rules and principles to
overcome any ambiguity,
vagueness or inaccuracies in the
regulations that has occasioned
the controversy in this case.
Interpretation in
law is defined as a rational
process of ascertaining the
MEANING of Language used in a
legal text, and the
determination, subject to any
Rule of Law, of the scope or
effect of the provision.
In the case:
CHATNEY VRS. BRAZILIAN SUBMARINE
TELEGRAPH COMP.
[1981] 1 QB at 85
LINDLEY L. J noted that, the
meaning of a word is a question
of fact in all cases, and
whether one is dealing with a
poem or a legal document, the
effect of the word is a
question of law.
And I take it that, the
normative meaning of a legal
text is in effect the legal norm
established by the text to which
people will or must conform
their behaviour. There are
objectives which are
intentionally embedded in the
text by the law giver, and must
be found, and effect given to
them.
This court will
adopt the rational or purposive
form of interpretation and will
NOT place too much premium on
the semantic meanings of the
words in the regulation but
rather the legal or normative
meaning in the context in which
they appear or used for the
purpose of applying it to the
facts as found so far in this
suit.
Thus contrary to the
view taken by counsel for
plaintiff that the word
ADVISE is what is crucial to
understanding the regulations.
I take the view that it is
SUPERVISION or the word
SUPERVISE is the operative word.
In COLLINS ENGLISH,
Dictionary, the word supervise
is defined as follows:
(i) “To direct or
oversee the performance or
operation of.
(ii) To watch over so as to
maintain order etc.
And SUPERVISOR, is defined as:
(i)
A person who manages or
supervises
(ii)
A foreman/woman
(iii)
(In some British University) A
tutor supervising
the work of a
student.
The legal meaning of SUPERVISION
or supervise must be extracted
from the semantic meaning. And
in interpretation “HUMAN”
language, must be translated
into “LEGAL” language, and by
that the static law, is
turned into Dynamic law,
and the legal norm is put into
practice.
Legal Interpretation involves
turning the SEMANTIC text, into
a legal norm –hence there is a
distinction between semantic
meaning of a text and its legal
meaning.
(i) Whiles the
SEMANTIC meaning of a text
is the totality
of all meanings that
may be attached to the language
of the text, in the ideal
lexicon of those who speak the
language in question.
However, in interpreting the
text the LEGAL meaning is
from among a number of SEMANTIC
possibilities. and to decide
which of semantic meanings
constitute its of proper legal
meaning.
(ii) Semantic meaning
of a text, determines its
semantic
potential or
semantic range. And the LEGAL
meaning
carries the potential into
practice. The above in
neither frivolous nor pedantic
analysis, because this is
what interpretation strieto
sensu is, and this has been
acknowledged by all scholars in
this field.
It must be
noted that the body to
oversee the work/research of a
PhD Student is not called
Supervisory Committee for
nothing.
The law giver could have
designated it ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, but that was not the
case.
The word supervision has been
used in the text of the
regulations, in several
subsections.
I hold the view that
the role or functions of the
Supervisory Committee, must be
construed purposively so as to
decipher the intention and the
objectives for establishing such
a body, as part of the
institutions or instruments to
achieving excellence in Graduate
Studies in the University of
Ghana.
I will cite three
cases as illustration, in an
analogous reasoning, to support
the reason why a purposive
approach must be adopted in
trying to understand the text,
under consideration. And
context, which is student,
lecturer/teacher relationship
cannot be over emphasized.
The first case is:
Re
Dadzie [Deceased]; Dadzie
VRS.
Addison
[1999 – 2000] 2 GLR 291
The deceased in this case in
paragraph 8 of his WILL,
devised, shares in his Hotel
Business, to be distributed in
specific percentage. The Hotel
business became defunct and the
property converted into a
residential facility. SHARES,
in the Hotel appeared ambiguous,
but it was interpreted to mean
RENTAL INCOME, to avoid
absurdity, and to give effect to
the intention of the testator.
The second case is:
REPUBLIC
VRS. HIGH COURT, ACCRA
EXPARTE:
YALLEY [GYANE & ATOR]
2007/2008 SCGLR 512
In this in excess of its
jurisdiction by hearing a suit
which had been transferred from
case the court had to inter alia
determine whether the High Court
acted another High Court,
without the seal and authority
of the Chief Justice. The
Registrar of the High Court,
without the order of the Chief
Justice had placed it before a
new judge. And it was section
104(1) – (3), of the Court Act,
1993, as amended by Act 620 of
2002, which has to be
interpreted. The word CASE,
was to be construed. Her
Lordship, the Chief Justice,
Georgina Theodora Wood, in her
ruling favoured the purposive
approach, particularly the
application of BARAK’s broad
definition of PURPOSE in
solving interpretative problem,
but insisted it must be done in
two stages. The two stages
being, first taking the plain
words as they are, but if the
result will defeat the intention
of the law, then a purposive
approach must be adopted.
The word, CASE, was thus
interpreted to include
MOTIONS.
The decision was to ensure that
litigants do not choose and pick
their judges, so that
transparency and fair play as
corner stones of justice
delivery are not compromised.
Finally, the word,
COMPLAINANT and for that matter
COMPLAINT, came up for
interpretation in the suit cited
below:
REPUBLIC
VRS. HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK
DIVISION)
EXPARTE: COMMISSIONER ON HUMAN
RIGHTS & ADMINISTRATIVE
JUSTICE
[RICHARD
ANANE] 2007/2008 SCGLR 213
In this case, CHARAJ, placing
reliance on ART 218 (e) of the
1992 Constitution and its
analogous provision in Section
7(1) (f) of CHRAJ ACT, 1993 [ACT
456], undertook preliminary and
subsequently, full scale
investigation into allegation of
corruption and conflict of
interest that had been made
against Dr. Richard Anane (the
interested party), in the media
without a formal complaint from
an identifiable complainant and
at the end of investigation made
findings of conflict of
interest, against the interested
party.
And being dissatisfied, he
applied for judicial review
[certiorari] to quash the
findings of CHRAJ, and
succeeded.
CHRAJ, also being dissatisfied
applied under ART 132 of the
Constitution and Rule 61(1) and
(2) of the Supreme Court Rules,
1961 [C.I. 16], for an order of
certiorari on the grounds that
the learned judge had erred in
law when he wrongly assumed
jurisdiction to interpret and
apply ART 218 (a) and 287 (1) of
the Constitution holding that A
FORMAL COMPLAINT BY AN
IDENTIFIABLE COMPLAINANT, was a
condition precedent to the
commencement of investigation by
the Commission, whereas the
interpretation of the
constitution was the preserve of
the Supreme Court. And other
grounds were also stated.
The Supreme Court
invoked ART 130 (2) of the
Constitution and section 2 (4)
of the Court Art, 1993, ACT 459,
as amended, and referred the
issue of interpretation of
COMPLAINT to itself.
The Chief Justice
Georgina Theodora Wood, was part
of the majority bench, stated
that a purposive construction of
an enactment is one which gives
effect to the legislative
purpose by (i) following the
literal meaning of the enactment
where that a purposive
construction of an enactment is
one which gives effect to the
legislative purpose by (1)
following the literal meaning of
the enactment where that meaning
is in accordance with the
legislative purpose, or applying
a strained meaning where the
literal meaning is not in
accordance with the legislative
purpose. She wrote as follows:
“In
construing the word
COMPLAINTS, as provided in
ART
218(a), I would not adopt the
extremist purely
literalist or textualist
approach, neither would I opt
for the
other extreme, a purely
purpose-oriented or
objective – based approach. I
do not intend to have a
mere
recourse to a dictionary lifting
a definition out of
it, and
then making a judicial
pronouncement which
ignores any contextual analysis
of the legislative
purpose of the framers or the
like”
She then adopted
what she called the hybrid
approach, a combination of two
or more guides, namely the
ordinary or plain meaning and
the subjective purposive based
approach.
The Supreme Court
decided that complaint means,
FORMAL COMPLAINT and it must be
by an identifiable person. The
court reasoned, this was to
ensure that a situation of
arbitrary investigation would
not occur.
Following from the
above, which ever rules of
interpretation is applied,
plaintiff has failed to
understand the normative message
contained in the rules under
consideration especially
Regulation 9 and 31 and 33.
Plaintiff had failed to give one
example of correction or review
or amendment of his research
work he did because the
Supervisory Committee has
advised or so directed. It is
not surprising that when
plaintiff was cross-examined as
to whether members of the
Supervisory Committee could at
least read his research work, he
answered that he doesn’t know,
only to have a change of mind
later. It would be a monstrous
absurdity to construe the
regulations the way plaintiff
and his counsel will want the
court to believe.
Furthermore, I must
observe that, by his pleadings,
evidence and submissions,
plaintiff requires of defendant
and its witnesses to act as a
funnel [without a filter]
through which his research work
could be poured/transmitted to
the Board of Graduate School,
and for consideration by the
examiners. That they cannot and
should NOT filter anything in
his research work, because, his
independence of thought and
originality will be
compromised. That the
supervisors must act as
blank/neutral minds and actors,
that should not interact,
influence moderate and affect
anything or any aspect of his
work.
Hence he refused and ignored
every correction, moderation,
addition, alteration, he
received as found on the facts.
The objective of the law giver
is to have an institution/body
like the Supervisory Committee,
that will moderate, guide and
direct research activities at
the PhD level so as not only to
achieve excellence, but protect
the integrity of the University
whilst it motivates researchers
to unleash their potentials by
maintaining their independence
of thought, in a well structured
fashion.
The following
material facts which are primary
facts at the core of the triable
issues have been found:
1.
It has been established that
plaintiff was properly admitted
as a PhD student to pursue a
course based on an approved
Research Proposal but he
misrepresented his age as found
in EXHIBIT “4” and “5”.
2.
Plaintiff’s ECOLAB attendance
has been established, he has
been regular since 2002 to 2004
especially as found in EXHIBIT
“L” and the evidence following
defendant’s retraction of the
contrary.
3.
Plaintiff did not conduct four
seminars as he has claimed.
4.
Plaintiff did not complete his
PhD course, he submitted his
research work in June 2005,
ignored the reconstituted
Supervisory Committee formed, in
less than 30 days after the
collapse of the initial one. He
failed to ask for a further
extension of his course duration
even though it is permissible,
and virtually walked away, and
cheekily retorted when
cross-examined on this that, the
defendant/University was
communicating with a ghost on
the impasse.
5.
The reconstituted Supervisory
Committee is lawful, it is the
same as the original Supervisory
Committee, but with different
membership, because at all times
it is only functional if there
are three members.
6.
I have found that
authentification in terms of the
rules of evidence and
defendant/University regulations
is a stage in the process of
submission of research work, it
is meant to certify that
facts/evidence, describing
methodology and processes used
to achieve a result are
accurate. This process has not
been completed by plaintiff.
7.
I have found that, plaintiff
showed gross insubordination
towards Professor S.K.A Danso
and, the Supervisory Committee
he headed, he/plaintiff has been
abusive of the committee by his
words and conduct, and he has
failed to establish, allegations
of, bias, personal hatred and
tribalism against the committee
members.
8.
Plaintiff had submitted
unsupervised research work,
contrary to Regulation 33.2(iv)
as in EXHIBIT “D” and by that,
he is caught by Regulation 36
on. Eligibility of who
qualifies for an award of a
degree [PhD].
9.
Adverse findings have been made
by the Supervisory Committee
against plaintiff as found on
the evidence.
10.
Consequentially within the
context of ART 21(1) (b) of the
1992 Constitution dealing with
freedom of thought, conscience
and belief, and the facts as
found the lecturers, who are
officials of the
defendant/University cannot be
compelled to sign the thesis.
Before I state my
final words on the triable
issues and the relief as
endorsed. I wish to observe
that: He who knows all about it
can never learn,
and those who are learned are
those who are prepared to be
taught.
Plaintiff audited a
course in Molecular Biology,
conducted Green-House and
laboratory experiments and
analysis but has failed to
discharge the burden of proof on
him that those activities were
conducted satisfactorily in
accordance with the objectives
of the research proposal.
He also failed to prove that
photographs and results
submitted on Molecular Biology
were original.
BY COURT:
All the five claims
endorsed on plaintiff’s writ of
summons are dismissed in their
entirety.
N.M.C ABODAKPI
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
JAMES AGALGA FOR PLAINTIFF
EMMENAUEL OHENE FOR DEFENDANT
dda@ |
