A visually impaired Ph.D. applicant in Ghana named Isaac Anin Baah has filed a lawsuit against the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), one of the nation’s premier higher educational institutions based in Kumasi, after his admission was unexpectedly revoked. Mr. Baah is represented by Mr. Carruthers Tetteh, a lawyer who is also visually impaired. The case, currently before the High Court of Kumasi, alleges negligence and discrimination on the basis of disability.
The lawsuit, initiated last week on August 29, details that Mr. Baah applied to KNUST’s School of Public Health and was initially scheduled for an interview in December 2023. However, a month before the interview, he was abruptly instructed not to attend, with no explanation provided. Despite this, Mr. Baah received an official admission letter later that month, which he accepted. Shortly thereafter, KNUST informed him that the admission was issued in error and was therefore invalid.
Mr. Baah contends that KNUST’s actions violate Ghana’s Persons with Disabilities Act, 2006 (Act 715), as well as international standards on inclusive education, such as the Salamanca Statement, to which Ghana is a signatory. He argues that the university’s actions amount to a failure in due diligence and discrimination based on his disability. The lawsuit seeks declarations of negligence and demands compensation for emotional distress and loss of scholarship opportunities caused by the university’s conduct.
In an exclusive interview with JURIST, Mr. Tetteh explained, “Mr. Baah approached me after attempting to seek explanations from the Dean of Public Health, who declined to provide any reasons for the cancellation of the interview or the revocation of the admission. I wrote to the school requesting the grounds for their decision. After two months without a response, I followed up with another letter, but still received no reply. We had no option but to go to court.”
Mr. Tetteh further stated, “When you visit the university’s website, Mr. Baah’s name appears on the list of admitted students for this academic year. He continues to receive messages from the school, including a recent one regarding an assessment he needs to complete. We believe he was properly admitted, but for some selfish or malicious reason, it was wrongly claimed that his admission was an error. After filing the lawsuit, the university responded, offering to reinstate his admission if we would drop the case. However, we are not considering this offer. We want the court to determine the matter, as we believe this will set a precedent not only for academic institutions but also for employment, health, and other facilities. We are confident that justice will be served.”
In my opinion, this case could have significant implications for how educational institutions in Ghana handle the rights of students with disabilities. The interpretation of Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which enshrines equality as a fundamental human right, is central to this issue. According to the position of the Ghanaian Supreme Court in Nartey v. Gati [2010] SCGLR 745, discrimination can only be considered lawful when the reasons are justifiable and do not irreconcilably conflict with constitutional principles.
A similar principle was reaffirmed in Asare v. Attorney General [2012] 2 SCGLR 460, where the Supreme Court emphasized that discrimination is lawful only if it is justified by reasons that do not conflict with the Constitution’s letter and spirit. This is particularly relevant under Article 29(4) of the 1992 Constitution, which clarifies that disability cannot be grounds for treating disabled persons differently from others unless such treatment is justified. Therefore, disabled and non-disabled individuals must be treated equally under the law.
As an administrative body, the university must ensure that its procedures are fair and that they respect and uphold the fundamental rights of all individuals. Failure to provide fair treatment to all applicants could constitute a breach of Article 17 and Article 29(4) of the Constitution.
It is particularly concerning that the university initially sought to quiet the applicant by offering him admission after the lawsuit was filed. I am humbled by the plaintiff and his legal team, who are looking beyond their immediate circumstances. The challenges of navigating the academic ladder in a nation that is still grappling with providing fundamental social amenities—let alone overcoming societal stigma—are immense. I eagerly anticipate reporting on how this case unfolds for our audience.
