The 72 AUCB-UG Delusional Students Who Wanted an Injunction on the October 31 Ceremony

Have you met someone with years of school attendance who struggles with disagreement, or someone who knows the Bible from Genesis to Revelation but finds it difficult to demonstrate kindness?

What about someone married for 30 years who still struggles to communicate with their partner? These examples raise an important question: Does formal education necessarily prepare people to navigate everyday life?

Many spend years in school, yet some of life’s most important lessons remain unlearned. School attendance does not automatically equip someone with the judgement, emotional intelligence and practical skills needed to navigate leadership, disagreement and everyday challenges.

This is not an argument against formal education or academic qualifications. Education remains essential to personal growth and national development. The concern is what happens when we leave the classroom without developing the capacity to apply our knowledge meaningfully.

Someone can study leadership yet lead poorly, earn a communication qualification yet struggle to converse meaningfully with family, or study ethics yet act dishonestly when nobody is watching. Experience also does not guarantee a willingness to learn. This disconnect between knowledge and practical wisdom is evident in different aspects of Ghanaian society. The greatest tragedy I will describe in my article is how some students in my graduating year failed to think critically, adapt or apply knowledge beyond the classroom.

Disagreement is legitimate; bitterness and personal attacks are not

The controversy which surrounded the African University of Communications and Business (AUCB)’s 23rd Congregation offers an important lesson to students, university leaders and anyone who takes up the responsibility of representing a group: a grievance can be legitimate, but the way it is pursued matters.

Following AUCB’s attainment of a Presidential Charter, the university decided to issue its own certificates immediately; the idea was met with disagreement between the student body and management. Some of us agree that the refusal to issue an early communique to the student body was not fair; however, the way some of my colleagues also decided to handle the situation was short of an eyesore. It was ruinous, devastating, heartbreaking, and harrowing.

That preference or decision to seek the UG-affiliated certificate was understandable. It was okay because, at the end of the day, no one can decide for someone; no one paid someone’s fees; no one passed through the emotional stress with you; their concerns deserved to be heard and addressed with care; however, when the situation and matter moves from that, to insulting the elderly including the school’s Vice Chancellor with noxious descriptions on his personality, lecturers called all manner of abusive words, other side of the student divide told they have been bought, all manner of negative stories online – it then moves the issue from finding strategic ways to handle it than it should be.

According to the information provided by the university in public statements and letters written in CLEAR and SIMPLE ENGLISH expression, management assured the 72 students that it was working with the University of Ghana to facilitate their graduation. The process, including the entry of their personal and academic records into the UG student management system, had reportedly commenced.

What should trouble the university community is not that students expressed disagreement. Students have every right to question decisions, seek clarification and use lawful avenues to protect their interests. A disagreement should not become a campaign against the institution; calling for the right thing to be done for you should not prompt all manner of derogatory comments, hold the institution you have passed through for 4 years, which obviously would be part of your future curriculum vitae, up to public ridicule, and further lower its reputation.

The concern is when a dispute over an administrative arrangement becomes personal, with insults, harassment or attempts to discredit people who hold a different view. Such conduct, where it occurs, does little to advance the original grievance. It can instead harden positions, damage relationships and distract from the issue that needs to be resolved.

Those who chose AUCB certification had their own reasons and were entitled to celebrate their achievement. Those who preferred UG certification were equally entitled to pursue their concerns. Neither group should have to demean the other to make its position heard.

A disagreement over certification should not become a contest over who can embarrass the university or spoil another student’s moment of celebration.

One shocking part was when some of us decided to approach the abusers on equal footing, because the abuse had happened for almost five months with no reply; during such time, we were told of disapproval in our utterance; we were told not to give attention to months of continuous provocation; the focus, rather, was not on seeing to it that the abuser puts an end to the intentional instigation. Meanwhile, these same individuals criticize social media and political commentator Kevin Taylor for not being able to make a simple point and argument without defaming, insulting, and maligning personalities – check the two situations; the two persons use the same approach; however, they are quick to criticise the other and leave the one in their camp; in simple terms, such action betrays logic and shows how dishonest we are as humans.

Another staggering aspect was when, during the last minute, in less than a week to the graduation ceremony, an ex parte injunction was filed at the High Court.

My source has indicated to me that, an official court search conducted on October 30, 2026, by LawPlus – Attorneys At Law indicated that the application for the injunction, filed on October 26, 2026, under Suit No. GJ/0083/2027 – Asare Solomon Kojo % 71 Others vs African University of Communications and Business (AUCB) was dismissed.

The court registry confirmed the outcome of the application as “Not Granted, Dismissed”, indicating that the request to restrain the university from holding the ceremony was unsuccessful.

I have also taken time to read their Statement of Claim, in the main matter filed, which is yet to commence. I would not go ahead of the court with a comment; I shall make my commentary after the court takes its decision on the main matter.

However, I can make my observation and opinion on the injunction since it has been established that it was dismissed. It was crystal clear that our colleagues on the other side moved to the High Court for the injunction because their emotions were high. Any good, observant person can see they wanted to obstruct the process, disrupt the months of preparation, ridicule the school, and laugh at fellow colleagues who decided to opt for the AUCB certificate.

My official source on their page of discussion made it clear to me that, before the injunction hearing on October 28, a message on Tuesday evening was communicated to the members about successfully securing an injunction; meanwhile, the hearing was the next morning. Read the particular unedited message below:

“Good afternoon, House. PLEASE READ THIS! These are some of the things we have been working on, which is why we were unable to update you earlier. We needed to be certain about the progress made and allow time for the necessary processes to be completed before communicating with the House.

First of all, we filed an application for an injunction last week, and the application has been granted. The school has also been served with the relevant court documents. Our first court hearing is scheduled for tomorrow at 9am at the High Court. We will communicate with you regarding important matters in due course. For now, however, our priority is tomorrow’s court hearing. We need as many people as possible to join us at the High Court tomorrow. If you are available, kindly make an effort to be present as we attend the first hearing of the case. Thank you all for your patience, understanding and continued support. God bless us all…

Accra high court. Opposite GRA. Specific court is General Jurisdiction 2 at 9:00am. Questions and other suggestions are welcome”

Any fair and critical person reading the above cannot tell me that our colleagues on the other side were not seeking to obstruct, disgrace, and make all manner of funny comments about succeeding in placing the graduation on the chopping board.

Any other attempt will be best seen or described as a BEAR FACE-SAVING STORY. The aftermath of the injunction refusal has been a heck for the group leaders; I’m told on authority that some members have made it clear of their disappointment and the continuous lies being communicated to them. The end will justify everything – I genuinely wish them well.

Honesty And Restraint

Student advocacy groups have an important role in university life. They can bring concerns to management, explain policies to their members and help students navigate difficult decisions. But that role comes with responsibility.

Student group leaders must be honest with their members about what is known, what remains uncertain and what steps are realistically available. They should not encourage members to believe that a preferred outcome is guaranteed when the matter is still being dragged.

They must also be prepared to correct misinformation and discourage personal attacks, even when those attacks come from their own supporters. Leadership is not simply the ability to mobilise people around a grievance; it is the ability to guide them towards a constructive and lawful response.

Where students feel their concerns have not been adequately addressed, their representatives can request written clarification, seek a meeting with management, consult the relevant student governance bodies and obtain independent legal advice. They can also present their case publicly in a measured way, supported by documents and verifiable facts.

These approaches are more likely to build credibility than insults, rumours or attempts to turn one group of graduands against another.

Perspective

The 72 students’ desire to graduate under the UG arrangement should not be dismissed simply because their injunction application was unsuccessful. Their outstanding concern remains important, and AUCB management has said it is working with the University of Ghana to honour the students’ preference.

At the same time, the other graduands had a right to proceed with their ceremony after the court declined to stop it. Their achievement should not be diminished by a dispute that did not involve their choice of certification.

The university community should therefore resist the temptation to turn this matter into a lasting division between “AUCB” and “UG” students. They are all students whose academic journeys deserve respect.

Lesson

The lesson for students is simple: stand up for your rights, but do so with reason, discipline and respect. Do not allow disappointment or bitterness to cloud your judgement. Before taking action, ask whether it advances the grievance or merely harms others who are not responsible for it.

For student leaders, the responsibility is even greater. Listen to members, verify claims, explain the available options and make sure advocacy remains focused on the issue. If members begin to cross the line into personal abuse or the spread of unverified claims, leaders should intervene rather than remain silent.

Universities, for their part, should continue to communicate clearly and promptly when institutional transitions affect students’ academic arrangements. Clear information can prevent confusion from growing into confrontation.

The AUCB graduation was a milestone for the institution and for the students who received their degrees. The remaining students must also be given a fair path to graduation under the arrangement they selected.

A university should be a place where disagreement sharpens reasoning, not where it destroys mutual respect. The pursuit of a grievance is most effective when it is guided by facts, lawful action and a genuine concern for the wider community.

The next time a dispute arises, students and their leaders should remember that protecting their interests does not require turning another person’s achievement into a battleground.

To conclude, my journalism lecturer years ago in my first University said something profound one day in class; he said, “One Can Be Assertive And Still Get Results In What He Or She Wants. One Can Be Assertive And Still Not Abuse Others Emotionally”

 

 

The writer, Justice Dzido – is a Journalist and Media Professional at The New Publisher Newspaper and online editor of www.thepublisheronline.com. He is a full-time employee, a dedicated and valued member of the team. The writer has practiced journalism for almost a decade.