<<Print>>

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.