Former Vice Chancellor of the University of Education Winneba (UEW) Professor Mawutor Avoke is questioning government’s position on the Supreme Court’s ruling that quashed a Winneba High Court decision that led to his removal from office.
Professor Avoke in 2017 was ordered to step aside as the VC of the UEW until a case b brought against him and the University’s Governing Council was determined.
The order was made in a case brought before the court by one Supi Kofi Kwayera, who insisted that the Vice Chancellor and the Finance Officer were operating under the institution’s defunct governing council.
The High Court subsequently found Professor Avoke, and the school’s Finance Officer, Dr. Theopholus Senyo Ackorlie, guilty of procurement and other financial irregularities, leading to their removal.
The Supreme Court however, by a unanimous decision, quashed the Judgment of the High Court, with the Judges who sat on the case, agreeing that the Judgment of the High Court, based on which Prof. Avoke was removed from office was wrong, stood quashed, and was therefore null and void, and of no effect.
This, therefore, meant Professor Avoke should have been reinstated as VC of the UEW. That, however, was not the case as Very Reverend Father Professor Anthony Afful-Broni was appointed the new VC.
Speaking to the media Tuesday, Professor Avoke slammed the government response on the Supreme Court’s ruling. According to him, he suspects political scheming to prevent him from returning to the University as he accused his successor Professor Afful-Broni and the governing council chairman Professor Abakah for scheming with others to remove him.
He is, therefore, asking the ministry of education and government to reinstate him following his exoneration of all illegalities by EOCO.
“Anyone who is a critical observer of the issues over the time will clearly know that some levels of involvement have played critical roles at various stages of this saga…no allegation has been proven against any of us and therefore the moral thing for stakeholders to do is to invite me back to the university.
“I do not see why after the Supreme Court had quashed the judgment of the Winneba High Court I shouldn’t go back because some fact-finding reports which have the same terms of reference as the EOCO report say some offenses have been committed. One of the basic objectives of the fact-finding report was to help the lawyers file the case to Court.
“At what time did it evolve to become a fault finding report? These are the fundamental questions that you ask. Clearly, this must point to the fact that there are people who are manipulating the system to prevent us from coming back,” he stated.