Fee Paying Policy at Public Universities is Constitutional(?)

The debate about whether the letter and spirit of Articles 25 and 38 of the constitution of Ghana are not being violated by given admission to candidates who can pay 'commercial fees' for their education has reached great heights. The universities offer admission to persons who may not have been qualified for specific programs but are given admission simply because they can pay for the cost of the education.

Many have observed that this is discriminatory especially with increasing belief that the quota for regular students is being reduced to admit more 'fee paying' students.

There are a number of factors to take into account:
1. In Shelley Ann Chapman's 'Trasformative-Deliberative Curriculum Theory' (2007) the idea of providing education (especially professional education) to someone simply because the person can pay was frowned upon, in fact rejected.

2. Admittedly both Articles 25 and 38 conditioned providing free education 'on the basis of capacity'. An expression that is subject to various forms of interpretation. The point has to be made however that, if the universities are complaining about over population leading to enormous stretch on facilities, then there is every need to contain the admission quota, to the extent that is being covered by the government subvention. The case of Independence Hall at KNUST where a part of the hall collapsed apparently due to stress can be mentioned.

3. The universities earn income from non-academic activities, which when looked at, could contribute more than the fees paid by less than 10% of the universities students population - the fee paying students.

4. It is not being suggested that the universities can not engage in commercial activities, such as sale of university placements - termed as fee paying - but it ought to be noted that such an activity should not place the greater majority of students of indigent backgrounds in possible disadvantage.

5. We ought to be guided by events in other jurisdictions. In the past year or so, there were some protests in the UK, for instance, about the increasing cost of higher education. A country where living conditions are much better compared to Ghana.

6. This ruling may give the universities an opportunity to charge higher fees for some other programmes. For instance I understand the University of Ghana, Legon has introduced a two year part-time LL.M/MA in Alternative Dispute Resolution this academic year. And they are charging Ghana cedis 5000 a year. A total of Ghana cedis 10,000 to complete the programme! Not taking into account books, transport, field trips, feeding and other associated costs.

The case simply should not have been sent to the Supreme Court. If the plaintiff had lot of faith in their case, which it appears they did, then they should have done a lot of research before sending the matter to the Supreme Court.

Read the news article below.

SMK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Paying University Fees Is Constitutional - Court

The Supreme Court has dismissed an action filed by the Federation of Youth Associations of Ghana (FEDYAG) against the Public Universities and the Attorney-General, which sought a declaration that the full-fee paying policy of Ghanaian Public Universities is unconstitutional and that the offer of admission to full-fee paying students amounts to discrimination under the Constitution.

In a unanimous decision, the court declared that the full-fee paying policy is justified and achieves a constitutionally valid purpose because it is one of the means by which the universities have been able to offer education to others.

FEDYAG sued the Public Universities in the Supreme Court claiming that the Public Universities “sell” admissions based on economic status and not intellectual abilities, in breach of Articles 17, 25, and 38 of the Constitution, because tertiary education is to be made “progressively free”. The plaintiff asked the court to interpret these articles and declare the full-fee paying policy unconstitutional.

However, the Public Universities argued that admissions are generally based on how much government subvention they receive each year, and that it is after the quota determined by the subventions has been determined, that spaces are made available to foreign students, Ghanaian nationals resident abroad, and Ghanaian students who have qualified but did not benefit from the subvention.

They also argued that although the full-fee paying students constitute less than 10% of student intake, they contributed over 28% of the Universities’ income, and that this goes to support non-fee paying students and provide scholarships to brilliant students from deprived schools.

The court found that the plaintiff only made bare assertions which it failed to substantiate and that the full-fee paying option is not discriminatory because normal admissions are not affected. The court said that although Article 25 of the Constitution demands equal opportunities for educational advancement, it also recognises limitations that are based on students’ capacities and available educational facilities. The court said that the ultimate object of Article 25 is free education by gradual introduction, and that under Article 38, education objectives can only be implemented by “the availability of resources.”

The court said that in reality education comes with costs, and that the nation cannot provide free tertiary education in the shortest time possible. The court cited statistics supplied by the Public Universities which defeated the plaintiff’s claim that spaces for non-fee paying students have been reduced in favour of full-fee paying students.

According to the court fee paying is one of the means by which the Public Universities are able to offer education to others and that this was justified and did not contravene the Constitution. The fee paying policy, according to the court, is not discriminatory as it does not affect the quota that is based on government subvention, and actually creates more opportunities.

The plaintiff was represented by Dennis Ofosuapea, the Public Universities by Ace Ankomah and Kwesi Fynn, and the Attorney-General by Cecil Adadevoh and Helena French.





Source: citifmonline.com via peacefmonline.com (http://news.peacefmonline.com/social/201107/59294.php )