In context of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana in specific provision of Chapter Five (5), the fundamental human rights of both the lecturers and the students in question ought to be respected.

In the case of Professor Gyampo, he proposed to the prospective student to marry her. In the face of the law, Professor Gyampo committed no offence thereof.

However, there is no specific provision in the 1992 Constitution which captures student-lecturer relation. Although there is no specific provision protecting the relationship of the two parties, per the 165, of it is impliedly stated that sexual relationship of both Professor Gyampo and the lady is also a form of right exercisable by the all citizens of Ghana. This is therefore important to identify the basic rights of Professor Gyampo to justify his action of marriage proposal to the lady.

Dr. Butakor and Dr Igbeneghu, on the other hand also committed no illegality according to Article 165. They have every right to be in any relationship with any ladies of their choice provided the ladies are of the required age captured by the 1960 Criminal Code.

Article 165 explains that despite the fact that there is no specific legislation in respect of some specific rights wherever the reasonable man or justice and fairness will demand that someone’s right must be protected, then per Article 165, that right in the Constitution must be exercised. Therefore, Article 156 of the 1992 Constitution is a provision which captures all other rights which are reasonable.

As stated in Article 165 of the 1992 Constitution, the fundamental human rights enjoyed by of Professor Gyampo in Chapter Five of the 1992 Constitution cannot be limited provided no crime or an element of unconstitutionality was committed therein.

Article 12 Clause (2) of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that “every person in Ghana, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinion, colour, religion, creed or gender shall be entitled to the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the individual contained in this Chapter but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest”.

In this case, Professor Gyampo is an adult of sound mind who is even above the age of sexual consent of 16 years under the 1960 Criminal.

The lady captured in the video is also above the age of sexual consent of 16 years. In this regard, the most important thing to identify is whether the lady in question consented to the request made by Professor Gyampo or she was unduly influenced in exchange of sex for grades.

However, in the case of Dr. Igbeneghu, the student in question was informed on how some lecturers take advantage of some of the students in exchange of grades.

Dr. Igbeneghu (the proposer) further forced the lady student (proposee) to get closer to him. Dr. Igbeneghu’s case is a classical example of sexual harassment and undue influence.

The investigative piece clearly pointed out that the lady was not under any influence to accept the proposal of professor Gyampo. The interpretation of this means that Professor Gyampo (proposer) has the legal right to propose to any lady of his choice and subsequently request for a hand in marriage provided the lady (proposee) is not unduly influenced in an exchange of something (grades) or otherwise.

In continuation from the above, the fundamental human rights of Professor Gyampo as justified by Article 165 of the 1992 Constitution, he is entitled to his personal liberty. This include the personal liberty to have sex, the personal liberty to propose to a lady for marriage and personal liberty to be in any form of relationship provided the lady is of the required age, and no condition of an illegality herein.

Article 14 Clause (1) of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that “every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except in the following cases and in accordance with procedure permitted by law –

(a) in execution of a sentence or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been convicted; or

(c) in execution of an order of a court punishing him for contempt of court; or for the purpose of bringing him before a court in execution of an order of a court; or

(d) in the case of a person suffering from an infectious or contagious disease, a person of unsound mind, a person addicted to drugs or alcohol or a vagrant, for the purpose of his care or treatment or the protection of the community; or

(e) for the purpose of the education or welfare of a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years; or

(f) for the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of that person into Ghana, or of effecting the expulsion, extradition or other lawful removal of that person from Ghana or for the purpose of restricting that person while he is being lawfully conveyed through Ghana in the course of his extradition or removal from one country to another; or

(g) upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence under the laws of Ghana.

Another important thing is that the student has her right to be in a relationship with any man of her choice. The relationship of the lady is not captured by the 1992 Constitution as an illegality. However, if her relationship with Professor Gyampo discriminates against other ladies and favour her for grades, the act could have constituted an illegality.

Article 17 Clause (2) of the 1992 Constitution states that “a person shall not be discriminated against on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status”.

Clause (3) of the same provision continues to state that “for the purposes of this article, “discriminate” means to give different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, gender, occupation, religion or creed, whereby persons of one description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another description are not made subject or are granted privileges or advantages which are not granted to persons of another description”.

The investigative piece did not capturer professor Gyampo, making demands for sexual favours in exchange of grades or ready to grant an admission to the prospective student at the expense of other equally prospective students.

Central to this discourse, it is also important to bring to bear, the Code of Conduct of both the University of Ghana and the University of Lagos.

The Code of Conduct of the University of Ghana do not allow for lecturer-student relationship. This is because there is the tendency of favouring some students at the expense of others.

Assuming without admitting that Professor Gyampo had sexual relationship with the prospective student, his act is of no evidential value to draw conclusion that his relationship with the student favoured her in her academic pursuit.

In conclusion, the conducts of the two lecturers from the University of Ghana in the investigative piece do not constitute an illegality provided there was no element of sexual exchange of grades or favours, to discriminate against other students. However, their conduct may be an affront to the code of conducts or regulations of the University.