[ad_1]
<! –
->
Former Deputy Minister of Education, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, appealed to President Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for waiving the proposed law for all public universities in Ghana.
The member for North Tongu said in a statement that the draft law on public universities was a potential "brutal attack against the sacred principles of academic freedom".
"I will conclude with a pbadionate appeal to President Akufo-Addo to withdraw without further delay and abandon this repugnant and contemptuous policy. This can not be a good political path for a Democrate", He declared in full below.
He added: "President Akufo-Addo, respectfully, you do not deserve that posterity will remember General Idi Amin Dada of Ghana's university teaching."
Find the complete statement of Mr. Ablakwa below.
REVOLVING AND CONTEMPTIVE PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES BILL MUST BE ABANDONED WITHOUT DELAY
After reading the draft law on public universities, published by the government, 2019, I am outraged by the unqualified bravado of the Akufo-Addo administration to launch what is clearly a brutal attack against the sacred principles of academic freedom and the autonomy of our public universities.
A careful review of the provisions of the bill portrays a desperate authoritarian agenda to attack the pillars of isolation and thus blatantly interfere with the management of our institutions of higher education in flagrant violation of the law. 39, Article 21 of Ghana's 1992 Constitution.
It may be recalled that President Akufo-Addo notified his government's intentions in this regard during the State of the Nation address to Parliament on February 21, 2019, when he said: "Mr. Mr President, this year we will present to Parliament a bill on higher education policy which will involve all public universities in a common law and lighten the administration of these universities. "
It would be interesting to know from His Excellency the President, what makes the current administration of public universities so difficult? And perhaps why is his government the only government in recent history to have this feeling?
When considering the draft bill, it becomes clear that the events of the abortive attempt to dissolve the Council of the University and to dismiss the Vice Chancellor of the University of Science and Technology Kwame Nkrumah One day last year inform this legislation. These circumstances, as is well known, left the government with a bloody nose, figuratively speaking, following the rampart provided by Chancellor Asantehene Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, with the support of the university community as a whole to resist this violent interference after lessons were learned from prof. Mawutor Avoke of the difficult situation of the STE.
It seems clearly to be the immediate cause of the frustration of the government and therefore explains why the government will embark on this reckless, misguided and short-sighted intervention ostensibly creating the legal basis for a more deadly return.
It is surprising, however, that the government refuses to be guided by the history of higher education in Ghana. A history of remarkable resistance and stubborn resilience in protecting universities against outside intrusions from the very beginning, when the foundations of higher education were thrown away.
It is precisely because of this principle that the very first motto of the first university of the country, the Gold Coast University College (UCGC) in 1948 was "Vigil Evocat Auroram"With the rooster as a symbol, the message was clear: the bird always vigilant and vigilant calling dawn. reason to be was explained as being vigilant to protect his academic freedom from the erosion by political interference in his business.
It was this tenacity to protect the academic freedom and autonomy of the University of Ghana that allowed, even when the Chancellor of that University, President Kwame Nkrumah (the University of Ghana Act of 1961 authorized presidents only to be chancellors). eight members in 1961, as well as the pillars of the PCP, the Honorable K.A. Gbedemah, Kojo Botsio, Tawia Adamafio and Kofi Baako; the university community has always ensured that government-university relations do not degenerate into interference and control by the former. Even then, after tensions, particularly with Colonel Acheampong's chancellery, the academic community recommended to Ghana, through the 1979 Constitution, to abolish the practice of presidents serving as chancellors to ensure greater autonomy.
It is instructive to note that although PNDC Law 239 has been entrusted to the President of the PNDC Chancellor, President Jerry John Rawlings has not exercised this power.
The irony can not be lost with us – what the military leaders have avoided, a democratically elected president, Akufo-Addo, is rather champion.
Humbly, I will now share my thoughts on the Public Universities Bill, 2019.
First of all, we do not know what is the purpose of the law, nor what harm it claims to cure, except to give the government a legal basis to pursue a total invasion.
As the proverb says, "Do not fix it, do not fix it". Ghana's public universities, despite the challenges badociated with all human institutions, have earned an enviable reputation around the world for their academic excellence and impeccable pedigree. The introduction of this bill, which arrogantly disregards the establishment of laws establishing public universities, is quite ridiculous and paradoxical.
The bill in its current state is at best an excuse, as it is fraught with errors, inconsistencies, unconstitutional provisions and references to non-existent institutions such as the so-called "Commission de l". Higher Education of Ghana ".
I will now highlight some of the problematic and shocking provisions of the bill, specifically:
1) Subsection 3 (1), which is intended to give the President the power to appoint a majority of the five members of a proposed nine-member Board of Directors.
This proposal will successfully place the university councils and, by logical extension, the entire university under political control. If this is allowed, it will actually mark the death of the notion of an independent university. Suffice it to add that university personalities who subscribe to opinions that may be at odds with the ruling party risk compromising their academic careers, since Clause 5 (h) obliges new politically-controlled councils to approve. appointments at the faculty level.
(2) Subsection 3 (5) grants the President considerable powers to dissolve and reconstitute the governors' councils as they see fit in case of "emergency". even more disturbing is the fact that the law does not define what it means by "emergencies" in the interpretative article. This nebulous and amorphous animal called "emergency situations" will only create a breeding ground for abuse and a new attack on university councils, especially when the government does not agree with a Council decision. The recent KNUST stalemate is a clbadic Example. Another point to consider is that Board members will be beholden to the President, living in constant fear of being dissolved or suppressed, to the detriment of the institutions they serve.
In any case, I would have thought that in an emergency, regardless of the urgency, we would rely on the rich wisdom of the university councils to help the authorities in place to overcome these emergencies. Instead of this indecent hurry to remove the advice, perhaps at the times when they are most needed.
(3) Article 24 dangerously approves the approval of all financial matters in public universities by the Minister of Finance in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with Article 179 of the 1992 Constitution which confers such powers on the Parliament .
4) Article 34 envisions a centralized admission platform and for which I read in the newspapers a few weeks ago that a committee had already been set up to recommend the modalities of implementation.
This is yet another unjustified badault against our universities. There is absolutely no reason to deny public universities the right to conduct their own admissions process and determine for themselves, based on merit, which ones they decide to pursue. invite into their group of students. The current system of admission have worked quite well without controversy in recent decades. There is no need for any unsolicited political interference in confessions that, as we have seen with many such projects in other government-controlled areas, meritocracy is soon giving way to cronyism. , clanism and "who-know-knowism".. "
If the government seeks to intervene on the type of programs that we must prioritize as a nation, the practice has been to set standards under the auspices of the National Council of Higher Education (NCTE) – this practice could be strengthened instead of practically diverting the admission process.
Again, learn from history; whether the Subcommittee on Professor Kwapong's admission policy, in May 1963, rejected similar attempts to interfere with the terms of admission, like the powerful Kojo Botsio, who served as Minister of Education and President of the National Council of Higher Education. see how the current government will succeed with this latest attempt. Of course, unless the leadership of contemporary universities across the country is willing to allow the government to gain a foothold.
5) Article 35 provides that the governance of students must be restructured to comply with the provisions of this odious bill. As a former president of the NUGS, and to the extent that this law goes against the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, I expect that that student leaders understand the harm that this new law, if pbaded, will do to the quest for World clbad academic excellence and its impact on their degrees. It's time for student leaders to form strong coalitions with their speakers and other interest groups to resist the oppressor's regime. Fewer opportunities in the history of the student movement required a decisive and decisive mobilization.
6) Article 36 is perhaps more insulting because it forces all public universities to comply with harmonized laws. This attempt to make our public universities glorified junior high schools regardless of their unique missions and social anthropology is the most offensive for say the least.
7) Section 42 contains another bizarre provision stating that: "The Minister may, on occasion, give directions to the University through the National Council of Canada. 39, higher education, and it must conform to it. "
C & # 39; more unacceptable! Why are we throwing such contempt on our university professors? Enough disdain and disrespect!
The history of higher education in Ghana teaches us that not all of the government's guidelines were deemed useful or noble and therefore should be strictly respected. The 11th April, In 1964, a presidential directive establishing a nominating committee that all Ghanaian academic institutions use this body for the appointment of their staff is politely disobeyed. It was the same when the government, in 1977, decided to prematurely retire two professors from the University of Ghana Medical School in a rather strange development – the university, for a good reason refused to comply with an act of challenge worthy of being congratulated.
If this law is pbaded, we run the real risk that education ministers, often political party activists, make our universities their political playground, especially in this period of extreme political polarization.
I will conclude with a pbadionate appeal to President Akufo-Addo so that he retires without further ado and abandons this repugnant and contemptuous policy. This can not be a good political path for a democrat.
There is no doubt that the worst tyrant in the world would be jealous of our president if he continued this despotic and unglamorous quest to undermine the academic freedom and institutional autonomy of our flourishing and globally recognized universities.
President Akufo-Addo, respectfully, posterity does not remind you as General Idi Amin Dada of University Education in Ghana.
Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa (MP)
[Former Deputy Minister for Education]
8th April, 2019.
[ad_2]
Source link
