In less than twenty-four hours since choicism.com published a material purported to have been written by a group of students challenging the eligibility of Ernest Opoku Nti’s candidature for the SRC presidency slot, he has responded.
In less than twenty-four hours since choicism.com published a material purported to have been written by a group of students challenging the eligibility of Ernest Opoku Nti’s candidature for the SRC presidency slot, he has responded.choicism.com has intercepted another document written by Ernest Opoku Nti (Restoration), addressed to the Division of Legal and Consular Services of the University of Cape Coast,. damning the petitioners claim of his ineligibility to contest the SRC elections.
Below is the full content of the response by Restoration;
C/O University Of Cape Coast Cape Coast
14th March, 2014
University Lawyers
Division of Legal and Consular Services
University Of Cape Coast
Cape Coast
Dear Sir,
RESPONSES TO PETITION RAISED AGAINST MY CANDIDATURE FOR THE POSITION OF SRC PRESIDENT.
I have been alerted by the vetting committee for the 2014 SRC ELECTIONS, that a petition brought to the vetting committee against my person by some students of this University seeking to disqualify my candidature has been directed to your office for advice.
I want to alert your office that I have taken serious notice of the said petition and would want to bring to your attention that the lies and fabricated issues raised therein, upon which relieves are sought.
The petitioners wrote to seek relieves on the five grounds of baseless and unfounded allegations with no clear and defined meaning.
I humbly bring to your office for critical examination and scrutiny the following facts and responses to the unsustainable petition brought against me.
PETITIONERS GROUND 1: “He was FOUND CULPABLE by a duly constituted committee of the University for using FICTITIOUS PAY-IN-SLIPS to register which constitutes a crime against the University”.
RESPONSE: 1. I have never been found CULPABLE by any constituted disciplinary committee of the University for using fictitious pay-in-slips to register and hence no single crime have been committed by myself as the petitioners claim.
2. The report explicitly stated that I was a MERE VICTIM of circumstances and hence did not even need to investigate me further. Hence the claims by the petitioners that I was found culpable is false.
REFERENCE: 2013 Disciplinary Committee report on the use of fake-in-slips chaired by the Pro-Vice Chancellor Prof. John Nelson Buah.
PETITIONERS GROUND 2: “He FRAUDULENTLY PERSUADED other students into the same criminal act”.
RESPONSE: I have never fraudulently persuaded other students into a criminal act since the evidence gathered by the committee and my cross-examination with Sunday Agyekum (the gentleman who took my money and that of the ladies in question in respect to the case) is clear that those persons were willingly convinced to support the cause of which all of us later found to be a scam of which the persons have themselves agreed during their encounter with the disciplinary committee. Hence, this claim is another falsehood meant to incriminate me on no evidential grounds.
PETITIONERS GROUND 3: He has signed a bond to be of good behaviour with the Disciplinary Committee due to his involvement in a CRIMINAL CONDUCT against the very institution he is seeking this post.
RESPONSE: I was made to sign a bond of good behaviour as an alert to be vigilant and careful in any dealings I indulge in since it may have some criminal connotations I may not even be aware of. Therefore I also believe, that the interpretation given that I signed a bond because I involved myself in a criminal conduct is misplaced and hence proper consultation be done through the Disciplinary Committee Chairman who can be a proper witness to this matter. Beyond that, no proper legal jurisdiction will punish a person ruled to be a MERE VICTIM in a manner that has the intent to incriminate them.
PETITIONERS GROUND 4: His candidature to become SRC PRESIDENT is against article provisions of both the constitution of the SRC and the students’ handbook (Article 10.2 (b) and (c) ), and therefore should be disqualified from contesting the election.
RESPONSE (A): Article 10, clause 2(b) of the said regulation book states “Not have a criminal record”.
I clearly put it to your office that
(1) I have no criminal record as claimed by the petitioners
(2) No criminal proceeding has ever been brought against me by any court of competent jurisdiction in the Republic of Ghana or beyond, not even to talk of been convicted of it. In actual fact, I have never been invited to even answer to any criminal case by any legal proceedings by any court of competent jurisdiction.
Therefore the claim that I am a criminal is false. Reference: Attorney General’s office of the Republic of Ghana. Judicial registry, Republic of Ghana.
RESPONSE (B): Article 10.2(c) states “Not have been rusticated or disciplined in any way or withdrawn by the University.
(1) I have never been rusticated in this University. Reference: Division of Academic Affairs
(2) I have never been withdrawn by this University. Reference: Division of Academic Affairs.
(3) I have never been disciplined in any way in this University.
Reference (1) Page 34 of the revised edition of the Student handbook is clear on the University regulations for students under the Discipline section.
Key points read “In all cases of breach of discipline, punishment may involve FINES, SUSPENSION OR DISMISSAL” Neither of these has been meted to me as a student.
In any case, there is no legal jurisdiction that passed a punitive measure or sentence a person found to be a MERE VICTIM of a criminal case and hence no such claim is true.
PETITIONERS GROUND 5: He has engaged in a conduct that is HIGHLY UNBECOMING of the occupant of the SRC President’s office and therefore cannot be trusted with such high public office.
RESPONSE: I have not engaged myself in any conduct unbecoming of a leader and an aspiring occupant of the SRC office. But then, if this ground is derived from the claims of criminality, then, I humbly respond that it lacks credibility and it cannot be sustained in any proper legal proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction.
FINALLY, I would like to appeal to the Division of legal and consular affairs to strike out and dismiss this petition on the grounds of responses provided by therein since the petition is misplaced and full of untruths and baseless legal principles.
I strongly believe that it is only intended to deny me the opportunity to serve students and further deny the thousands of students who have bought into my idea of contesting for this high office and executing a policy framework that is duly in line with the University’s strategic plan. I count on your legal co-operation.
Yours faithfully,
Signed OPOKU NTI ERNEST ED/BSS/11/0026
CC: NB: All offices to which the petition was copied.
