The responsibility for determining and communicating provisional degree classifications to students affected by the African University of Communication and Business (AUCB)-University of Ghana (UG) certification dispute rests with the institution, according to Sydney Antonio, Esq, Co-Counsel in the case at Freshfields Law Consult.
Mr Antonio said the 75 affected students were seeking clarity on the degree classifications they were expected to receive before their graduation ceremony, insisting that their demand was for consistency with the treatment reportedly afforded to previous cohorts, rather than preferential treatment.
Speaking to Techfocus24, he said the students’ concern was that, unlike previous cohorts who were ordinarily able to ascertain their degree classifications before convocation, they had yet to receive the necessary clarity regarding their own classifications.
He maintained that determining the appropriate administrative procedure, including any consultation with the University of Ghana, was an internal matter for AUCB to address in accordance with applicable academic regulations and established procedures.
“The students are not demanding preferential treatment. They are seeking consistency with the treatment reportedly afforded to previous cohorts, alongside timely disclosure of their degree classifications before graduation,” his position suggests.
Mr Antonio acknowledged that students could calculate or establish their Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) or Final Grade Point Average (FGPA), but argued that those figures alone might not provide sufficient clarity without being linked to the corresponding degree classification.
He said informing students of their expected classifications before convocation was a reasonable expectation, particularly at a significant stage of their academic journey.
According to him, the request was about transparency, administrative fairness and the consistent application of established practices, subject to verification of the previous arrangements and the applicable academic regulations.
Students await official response
Mr Antonio said the immediate priority for his clients remained an official response from AUCB addressing the substance of their demands.
He said the students were not privy to discussions between AUCB and the University of Ghana and could not comment on any proposed measures arising from those engagements.
“What my clients are interested in is that, whatever has gone on, the university officially communicates to them what it intends to do regarding their demands,” he said.
He stressed that the students were awaiting formal communication from the university but warned that the matter could proceed to court if AUCB failed to respond within the stipulated timeframe.
The lawyer also questioned the manner in which the university had handled the dispute, arguing that decisions affecting the students’ degree awards should have involved meaningful consultation with them.
He said the students had been admitted under the university’s affiliation arrangement with the University of Ghana and should have been consulted on decisions with implications for their academic future.
Mr Antonio further argued that AUCB’s earlier circular making AUCB degrees mandatory for the affected students was problematic.
He maintained that the university had failed to follow proper procedures and adequately engage the students on matters affecting their academic outcomes.
“If AUCB had followed the proper steps with respect to consultation, all these issues would not have arisen,” he said.
Consultation and administrative responsibility
Mr Antonio said meaningful engagement among AUCB, the University of Ghana and the affected students could have provided greater clarity and prevented the dispute from escalating.
He reiterated that the responsibility for resolving the administrative questions surrounding degree classifications lay with the institution, including determining the appropriate process for communicating the classifications to students.
He maintained that the students were not seeking to dictate how AUCB should manage its internal procedures but wanted the university to address their concerns in accordance with the applicable regulations and established practices.
The dispute therefore centres on the university’s responsibility to provide timely clarification on the classifications the affected students are expected to receive, as well as the need for consultation and official communication on decisions affecting their graduation.
Mr Antonio said his clients remained focused on obtaining a formal response to their demands, while retaining the option of further legal action should the university fail to meet the stipulated deadline.
