The writer
There are moments when a country must pause and ask itself difficult questions. Not because the answers are comfortable, but because refusing to ask them may expose something deeply troubling about our values, our institutions and the people entrusted with public leadership.
The allegations involving the headmaster of Obuasi Senior High Technical School in the Ashanti Region present one such moment.
Reports of alleged sexual abuse involving female students have raised disturbing questions about the safety of children in our schools, the responsiveness of our institutions and the relationship between political influence and public accountability. The investigative documentary by JoyNews and journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni has brought the matter into national focus, reporting allegations involving multiple students and raising questions about complaints said to have been made long before the recent public outcry.
The allegations are grave. But what troubles me almost as much as the allegations themselves is the reported delay in responding to concerns, the apparent difficulty some complainants faced in securing action, and the political controversy that followed when the accused sought a higher position within his party.
Let me state clearly: the headmaster is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Allegations are not convictions, and no individual should be declared guilty merely because a media investigation has generated public anger. He must have the opportunity to answer the allegations, and the police and courts must follow due process.
But the presumption of innocence must not become an excuse for institutional inaction. There is a fundamental difference between declaring a person guilty before trial and taking reasonable steps to protect potentially vulnerable students while credible allegations are investigated.
Fairness to the accused and protection for the complainants are not competing principles. A responsible system must deliver both.
The Question Is Not Only What Happened, but Who Knew?
One of the most important questions emerging from this case is straightforward: who knew what, when, and what did they do about it?
According to JoyNews’ investigation, complaints and petitions from students, parents and teachers had reportedly reached school management, education officials and other authorities before the matter received widespread public attention. The reports raise serious questions about whether those concerns were adequately escalated and investigated
If these accounts are substantiated, we must ask why the system did not respond with the urgency that the protection of children demands.
Why should students and their families have to wait for a journalist to investigate and publicise their concerns before the relevant institutions demonstrate visible urgency?
Why should teachers who reportedly raised concerns find themselves facing questions about their own treatment and professional circumstances, rather than receiving clear assurances that their complaints would be investigated fairly? The National Association of Graduate Teachers has alleged that 38 teachers were asked to leave the school after speaking against the headmaster. That allegation also requires independent examination.
And why did the matter become a national controversy before the public could see a clear, coordinated response from the institutions responsible for education, policing and child protection?
These are not questions that should be dismissed as political attacks. They are questions of institutional responsibility.
When an allegation of serious misconduct is reported, the first duty of the relevant authorities is not to protect an institution’s reputation, preserve political convenience or avoid embarrassment. It is to establish the facts, protect those potentially at risk, preserve evidence and ensure that the process is not compromised.
An institution that waits for public outrage before acting has a serious problem, even if its eventual response is appropriate.
When Political Loyalty Becomes a Moral Blindfold
The headmaster has been reported to hold a constituency executive position within the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) and to have sought a higher party office. The party initially decided to allow him to remain in the contest, citing considerations including the presumption of innocence, before reversing its position amid growing public concern.
This sequence raises a broader question about political leadership: when does loyalty to a political organisation begin to compete with loyalty to the values that organisation claims to represent?
Political parties are important institutions in a democracy. They organise citizens, develop policies, recruit leaders and provide platforms for public participation. But a political party is not a moral authority whose decisions automatically determine what is right or wrong.
Unfortunately, partisan loyalty can distort judgement. When the person at the centre of a controversy belongs to our party, we may demand patience, insist on context, question the motives of those raising concerns and emphasise the individual’s rights. When the same allegations involve someone from an opposing party, we may be quicker to condemn, demand arrests and pronounce judgement.
The facts may be similar, but our standards change with the colours we wear.
This is not political loyalty. It is moral inconsistency.
The real test of a political party’s commitment to justice is not how it treats an opponent accused of wrongdoing. It is how it responds when the person facing allegations is one of its own: a financier, organiser, constituency executive, ministerial ally or someone whose political future matters to influential members.
A party that speaks passionately about accountability when in opposition but becomes cautious when accountability threatens its own interests has not demonstrated principled leadership. It has demonstrated the limits of its principles.
The NDC’s eventual reversal was an important development. But the public is entitled to ask why the initial decision was made and what changed. Was there a clear and consistently applied standard? Did the party adequately consider the seriousness of the allegations and the need to protect confidence in its own leadership? Or did it take public pressure to make the implications impossible to ignore?
Those questions deserve honest answers, not partisan defensiveness.
Presumption of Innocence Is Not Presumption of Inaction
I am particularly concerned about the tendency to invoke the presumption of innocence as though it settles every question arising from a serious allegation.
It does not.
The presumption of innocence protects an accused person from being treated as guilty without proof. It does not prevent the police from investigating a complaint, education authorities from initiating an administrative inquiry, or an employer from taking proportionate precautionary measures where necessary to protect students and preserve the integrity of an investigation.
Indeed, the Education Minister eventually directed the headmaster’s suspension and referred the matter to the Criminal Investigations Department. The Ghana Education Service also interdicted him, while the police pursued the criminal investigation. These steps are important, but they raise an uncomfortable question: why did decisive institutional action become so visible only after the matter received substantial public attention
The accused must be treated fairly. The students must also be treated fairly. They should not have to prove a criminal case themselves before their concerns are taken seriously enough to warrant investigation and appropriate protection.
A functioning institution does not have to choose between protecting a complainant and respecting the rights of an accused person. It establishes procedures that do both.
By Dr. Michael KubiÂ