Commonwealth hall conversion halted!

An Accra Fast Track High Court, has advised authorities of the University of Ghana to halt any action to convert the Commonwealth Hall into a mixed graduate hall, as an application for injunction is pending before the court.

The judge, Justice Ofori Atta, observed that until the court arrived at any decision, any action taken by the university authorities could amount to contempt of court.

Counsel for the university, Ace Ankomah, in response told the court that “as gentlemen, we understand that the pendency of the matter is in itself a form of interim injunction, and therefore have already taken note of that and would act accordingly.”

The motion for perpetual injunction filed by four executives of the hall on behalf of 4,000 members, against the university, its executive committee, and Prof. Kwesi Yankah, Pro Vice Chancellor, to stop them from taking measures to shut down the hall without any justifiable reasons, could not be moved because Prof. Yankah had not been served with a notice.

Mr. Ankomah told the court that only the university and its executive committee had been served with a notice, for which reason he, yesterday morning, filed an affidavit in opposition to that effect.

Nana Ato Dadzie, counsel for the students, informed the court that he had not received a copy of the university authorities’ affidavit. The judge also indicated he had not received a copy.

The judge subsequently adjourned the matter to June 15, after ordering Nana Ato Dadzie to serve Prof. Yankah, who incidentally was present in court, with a notice, for him to respond before the adjourned date.

Initially, the court had wanted to give a date for ruling, asking that both parties should furnish it with all relevant documents, but Mr. Ankomah prayed the court to allow them argue the motion first.

The Commonwealth students, also known as Vandals, by their writ, are seeking certain declarations which include a declaration that per section 46 (2) of the statutes of the university, Commonwealth Hall exists as an all male hall of residence, and that the authorities’ decision violates the university’s own established law because it has not been amended.

According to them, it is the governing council that is authorized and mandated to make such arrangements as it deems fit, regarding the internal organization of the university, therefore since the committee and Prof. Yankah do not constitute the governing council of the university, they cannot expressly or by any administrative action such as letters, usurp the authority of the governing council of the university, to make such a pronouncement.

The students, who noted that the unproven allegations made against them by the school authorities, gravely affected the image of the hall and reputation of the students, said the move is just to punish the 4000 strong students of Commonwealth for offences they have not been, individually or collectively, proven to have committed.

The authorities of the university on the other hand, contended that it is perfectly within the purview of the council’s authority to make the decision, and that such a decision was neither illegal nor unconstitutional, as the university fully complied with and intends to comply with the relevant laws.

According to them, prior to the 13th March 2010 incident, the university had been deliberating on how to prevent the “rowdy, ritualistic behavior and hooliganism” of students of Commonwealth Hall.

They said the university has a duty to maintain its image which has been increasingly tarnished by the bad behaviour of hall members, and also protect other students, its properties, and generally maintain a conducive atmosphere for both staff and students.

The authorities disclosed that the institution has been reviewing its current statute to ensure that all its provisions are in line with the Constitution of Ghana, and a modern thinking.

They rejected claims that their decision is a form of punishment, since members of the hall will be affiliated and accommodated in other halls of residence, observing that the students’ action is premature so the court should dismiss their application.