KNUST statutes review sparks tensions as some UTAG members threaten strike

Conflicts are escalating at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) as the university revises its statutes, with some UTAG members hinting at striking if their concerns remain unaddressed. Dissatisfaction has grown over perceived insufficient dialogue, proposed alterations to the appointment of top university officials, and provisions potentially centralizing power within the Vice-Chancellor's office.

A source familiar with the discussions suggested industrial action might be contemplated if these issues are not adequately addressed. Strong opposition exists regarding changes concerning the selection of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deans, and other high-ranking academic roles. Some stakeholders argue that retaining voting processes is vital as it grants the university community some control over leadership decisions.

They fear that shifting to appointments might concentrate administrative influence over senior academic positions. There is also contention regarding proposed amendments to the Academic Board's composition. UTAG representatives have pushed for all Deans to be part of the Academic Board, whereas a draft proposes four Deans rotate on the board.

Critics claim this could dilute the direct representation of academic departments within a crucial decision-making body. Concerns have also arisen over provisions that might impact the tenures of certain officers like the Director of Finance, University Librarian, and Director of University Information Technology Services without adequate consultation with unions and professional groups.

The tension escalated after the release of a revised draft following approximately 15 months of work. The university community was initially given a week to comment, but it was later extended to eight weeks. The issue is connected to earlier efforts to draft a new University Act and statutes to complement it. Discussions in March 2025 revealed that key stakeholders around the university were reportedly not fully included in the drafting process.

A five-member committee led by Professor John Tia Bugri was formed to gather input from various stakeholders and refine the drafts for Academic Board consideration. However, some claim this committee's formation came too early, before the allotted stakeholder submission period ended. Moreover, they question why a second committee was set up to review the initial committee's work before the extended comment period had concluded.

Participants allege that stakeholder inputs during the process were insufficiently scrutinized and that notable proposals were not granted opportunities to be explained. The management of KNUST and the involved committees may need to clarify these allegations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the situation.