‘Suspended’ UEW VC, 4 others, demand immediate reinstatement

0
348

Lawyers of the five interdicted principal officers of the University of Education, Winneba, have written to the University Council, demanding their immediate reinstatement.

They have threatened to go to Court if their demands are not met within 7 days.

The officers, including the Vice Chancellor, Professor Mawutor Avoke and Finance Officer, Dr. Theophilus Senyo Ackorlie, were directed by the University Council to step aside for investigations into allegations of financial malfeasance against them.

This follows legal actions involving the university, the local chapter of the teacher union, and some private citizens.

The Supreme Court last month quashed a guilty verdict handed down the officers by the High Court, while upholding the governing Council’s interdiction.

But the lawyers in a letter to the University’s Council, argued that the Council has a calculated agenda to frustrate the officers.

They thus demanded “An immediate and unconditional reinstatement of the Affected Officers, especially (Ing. Daniel Tetteh, Ms. Mary Dzimey, Mr. Frank Owusu Boateng, Dr. Theophilus Senyo Ackorlie and Prof. Mawutor Avoke,) to their various offices to perform their functions in accordance with law.”

READ ALSO:  Face of North Campus 2k18 in Pictures

The lawyers also demanded an an immediate and unconditional restoration of the salaries, allowances and privileges attached to the various offices of the Affected Officers, which have been withdrawn as well as an “immediate payment of all outstanding salaries and allowances withheld from the affected officers together with interest thereon.”

Below are other reliefs sought by the lawyers:

  • An immediate cessation of all acts and practices calculated to frustrate the Affected Officers in the performance of their functions and/or remove them from office.
  • An immediate dissolution of the Fact-Finding Committee and an immediate halt to any investigations by the said Committee.
  • Definitive steps to ensure that the Chairperson of the Council and the Pro ViceChancellor are not involved in the setting up of any Committee to investigate the contracts, the subject matter of the court action, or any other contract in which they were involved in its promotion, negotiation, award, execution, payment or commissioning.
  • Definitive steps to ensure that any person or body of persons set up to consider the report of any Committee in respect of the said contracts does not include the Chairperson of the Council or the Pro Vice-Chancellor.
READ ALSO:  Face Of North Campus 2k18: Launching and Unveiling of Queens

CLICK HERE FOR FULL LETTER

Background

In a 23rd May 2017 writ issued, the plaintiff [Supi Kwayera] adduced that the university’s council’s mandate had expired in November 2013, but the Education Ministry failed to constitute a new Governing Council for the university, and rather allowed and permitted the defunct Governing Council which had no mandate whatsoever to continue the functions of a properly constituted Governing Council as if same had been properly constituted.

This Mr. Kwayera insisted was unlawful, and hence his legal action against the University of Education, Winneba.

However, before the substantive claims were looked into, the University, through its counsel, applied to the court to dismiss the suit on the three counts, but the application was dismissed.

The University’s branch of the University Teachers’ Association of Ghana (UTAG) as a respondent subsequently applied to join the application.

In June this year, the plaintiff prayed the to effect an interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, its assigns, agents, officers and all other persons acting through the 1st Respondent or claiming to be the lawful representatives of the 1st Respondent from authorizing any payment to any contractor or supplier whose contract is the subject matter of the substantive application before the court.

READ ALSO:  UEW SRC/JCRC FRESHERS’ AKWAABA ‘17

Again,the injunction was to restrain the 2nd Respondent from recognizing any supposed Principal Officer or any person whose mandate as an officer of the 1st Respondent emanated from the defunct Governing Council as the lawful representative(s) of the 1st Respondent until the final determination of the substantive application.

The injunction also sought to restrain the 1st Respondent and its lawful representatives from making any payment to Ghana Highway Authority or any third party entity including Larmas Construction (GH) Ltd in respect of a Memorandum of Understanding with Ghana Highway Authority for road maintenance until the final determination of the substantive application.



Comments

comments