Kumasi (Ashanti), 19th May 99 -

Mr Yaw Attakora-Amoo, a Kumasi-based lawyer, last Monday told a Kumasi High Court that the University of Science and Technology (UST) Council has accepted the practice and convention whereby the names of candidates are submitted for consideration for the post of Vice-Chancellor in order of merit.

Mr Attakora-Amoo, Counsel for Professor Albert Owusu-Sarpong, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the UST, was addressing the court presided over by Mr Justice Gilbert Mensah Quaye in the case in which plaintiff is seeking the court's declaration to enforce the UST Council's convention for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor.

Counsel contended that at the 143rd special meeting of the Council, it resolved that the names of two candidates, namely Professor Eugene H. Amonoo-Neizer and the late Professor Reginald T. Ansah-Asamoah, as listed in order of merit be sent to the PNDC Government for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor.

Mr Attakora-Amoo said at that meeting to consider the report of the Search Party, the Council did not quarrel with the report, adding that "the order of merit" was underlined in the minutes because it was very important.

He submitted that "the order of merit" was not merely descriptive of the candidates as contended by the UST and the UST Council, defendants in the case.

"If the phrase 'in the order of merit' was not to play any role and has no value, why did the resolution at the meeting not only show the names of Prof.

Amonoo-Neizer and Prof. Ansa-Asamoah but stated simply that the two names be listed alphabetically to the PNDC?" he asked.

Mr Attakora-Amo submitted that a precedent was set in 1992 whereby the annexe to the report by the Search Party did not go in any way to influence the Council to accept the report.

He said from evidence before the Court, there is evidence that the Council resolved to recommend the first two candidates in order of merit to the Government and that there was no evidence of voting.

Mr Attakora-Amo said submission by counsel for the defendants that there was no evidence that the Council had taken a decision not to vote was not the issue.

He said the case for the plaintiff was that, in so far as the 1998 Council had decided to follow the 1992 procedure and practice, the Council, once the Search Committee had presented its report, was bound to appoint the first candidate on merit without voting.

Counsel submitted that the attempt by the Council to vote was 'absurd, illogical and contravened its own stated principle' and was unjustified.

He said evidence before the court showed that the Council accepted the report as a working document and did not reject it either directly or by implication. It was, therefore, going to vote on the three short-listed candidates in order of merit.

Mr Attakora-Amo said it was not the contention of the plaintiff that the Council did not have the power to reject the report in its entirety.

The only basis upon which it decided to vote was its idea that the report was inadequate, he stated.

"If the report was bad, then why did they use it as the basis for further action on the three short-listed candidates?".

Counsel said the Council should have called all the six candidates if it had wanted to vote because the effect of 'the attempted voting by the Council' was to identify the most suitable candidate.

This, he noted, was contrary to the assertion by the Chairman of the UST Council, Agyewodin Adu Gyamfi Ampem, Acherensuahene, during the inauguration of the committee that voting was a thing of the past.

Mr Attakora-Amoo submitted that there was evidence to show that members of the 1998 Search Committee were given the necessary materials to guide them.

"They took cognisance of these materials and they were aware of the best procedure to get results and followed them scrupulously."

Hearing continues tomorrow, Wednesday, May 19.