Sex-crazy labourer jailed for arson

UST Council alone has the power to appoint VC – Counsel

Techiman (Brong Ahafo) 3^rd May ‘99 –

A 24-year-old farm labourer, Saah Shakpela, was on Friday sentenced to a day's imprisonment and a fine of 800,000 cedis by a Techiman Circuit Tribunal for causing damage and intentionally setting fire to a house.

The sentences are to run concurrently. Shakpela, who pleaded guilty, will in default go to jail for 12 months in hard labour.

The tribunal ordered that 400,000 cedis of the fine, if paid, must go to he complainant and owner of the house, Alhaji Abdulai Mohammed, Chief Imam of Techiman who is a farmer and a herbalist.

Police Chief Inspector Mary Asunta, prosecuting, told the tribunal, chaired by Mr Justice Nicholas Abodakpi, that the accused was a farm labourer to Alhaji Abdulai.

According to Chief Inspector Asunta, some women patients were brought to Alhaji Abdulai for treatment but it was detected that the accused was flirting with one of them.

Alhaji Abdulai warned the accused to desist from the act but he continued having an affair with the woman and he was, therefore, dismissed.

Shakpela got infuriated, went to the complainant's cottage and set fire to his thatched house valued at 500,000 cedis and then bolted.

The prosecutor said on April 22, this year, the accused visited the cottage at Anomatoa, near Techiman, and discovered that Alhaji Abdulai's house had been rehabilitated.

He again set fire to it and vanished but he was caught at the Techiman-Tamale lorry park three days later and handed over to the police.

GRi…/

Kumasi (Ahanti Region) 3^rd May ’99

Mr J.B.O. Pobee, Counsel for the University of Science and Technology (UST) and the UST Council, on Thursday told a Kumasi High Court that only the Council has the power to appoint a Vice-Chancellor for the UST under the 1992 constitution.

Mr Pobee said the Council, therefore, cannot in the circumstances of the case before the court delegate its discretion to any person.

He was addressing the court, presided over by Mr Justice Gilbert Mensah Quaye, in the case in which Professor Albert Owusu-Sarpong, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the UST, is seeking a declaration by the court to enforce the UST and the Council's convention for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor.

Counsel said the Council held a meeting on August 31, 1998, to consider a report submitted to it by a Search Committee containing recommendations of three candidates, one of whom might be appointed a vice-chancellor for the UST.

Differences arose among members of the council in the course of the meeting when it was suggested that the matter be put to vote and the meeting came to an abrupt end.

Mr Pobee said Prof Owusu-Sarpong, the plaintiff, had, in the report of the Search Committee, emerged first on merit and felt aggrieved that an alleged precedent had not been followed and therefore ommenced the action in the court.

On the relief sought by the plaintiff, Mr Pobee said the Council, at its 157th meeting, agreed that the procedure adopted in 1992 for the appointment of a vice-chancellor should be followed and members were reminded that the details had already been made available to them at the 156th meeting.

The council pointed out to members that unlike the 1992 practice, the council was now vested with the constitutional authority to appoint the vice-chancellor and not the government.

Mr Pobee explained that under PNDC Law 240, appointment of vice-chancellor to the university was made by government upon recommendations of the university council, but that with the coming into effect of the 1992 constitution, the university council is the appointing authority.

Counsel said the change of appointing authority delimits the extent to which the council in accordance with their own agreements was going to follow the 1992 procedure.

He said the council looked at the 1992 procedure and after a debate, decided to follow that procedure in so far as appointment of the Search Committee was concerned and all they meant to do was to appoint the committee to interview and make recommendations for the consideration of the Council.

Counsel explained that if what happened in 1992 was to be adopted and followed, then the council should have made recommendations to government but they could not do that because they cannot change the law.

Mr Pobee said decisions at council meetings are taken by unanimous decision, consensus or by voting and at the meeting held on August 31, 1998, the council could not agree on whether to accept the report and its recommendations or not to accept it.

He said since differences had arisen at the council meeting which could not be quickly resolved, the only option the council had was to vote, and in voting then the will of the council could have been determined one way or the other.

Mr Pobee submitted that for the court to declare that there should be no voting will constitute an unlawful fetter on the exercise of discretion by the council: "it is the council alone that has the power to appoint the vice-chancellor under the 1992 constitution."

He said to say the Search Committee's report be accepted and endorsed without voting is tantamount to a delegation of this constitutional power conferred on the council, and, in effect, it would be the Search Committee that would be appointing the vice-chancellor.

Counsel also said the action was against two defendants, the UST and the UST Council and pointed out that the UST Council is not a legal person and so the action against the Council is a nullity and ought to be dismissed.

Mr Yaw Attakora-Amoo, Counsel for the plaintiff, at this stage, informed the court that in order not to waste the court's time, he concedes to that assertion by the counsel for the defendants, however, he said the action against the first defendant is proper and should not be dismissed.

The case was adjourned to Thursday, May six, for Mr Pobee to continue with his address.

GRi../