UPSA, ‘Agradaa’ and public opinion
Last week, two major stories caught my particular attention because, for a change, they were outside the political spectrum and no attempts were made to infuse partisanship into them, which was quite some relief.
When news broke of students of the University of Professional Studies Accra (UPSA) being dragged out of lecture halls by a supposed ‘task force’ enforcing the university’s dress code in a crackdown against ‘indecent dressing’ on campus, public opinion appeared quite sharply divided.
As a general rule, I have a problem with so-called task forces, particularly those dispatched to ensure traders do not sell on pavements.
Invariably, the enforcers, clothed in a little authority and with some uniforms to boot, and feeling very much like tin god soldiers, can be physically aggressive in carrying out their fancy mandates.
To unleash a task force on tertiary level students in an institution of higher learning perhaps betrays a lack of an imaginative approach to the matter by the university authorities.
The disturbing video clip of a young lady student being dragged around by one of the task force personnel unfortunately reinforces a certain worrying narrative that using physical, even brute, force to achieve a certain objective is justifiable.
Enforcing a dress code must never come at the expense of students’ dignity, bodily integrity or constitutional rights.
Under both civil and criminal law, assault and battery remain fully in effect, regardless of any internal institutional policy, with potential legal liabilities, and I wonder how the university could miss this fundamental point.
Getting fair balance
Like many, I have no difficulty with an institution having a dress code because anarchy would otherwise be the order of the day.
I believe that most decent people would be aghast at the sight of a student off to lectures in a bikini, nightgown or pyjamas, for instance.
Where then does one draw the line?
But rules, such as a dress code, must be proportionate and reasonable. How, for instance, in the 21st century, is an anklet or a nose ring indecent?
What exactly is ‘unkempt hair’? What does the generic ‘etc’ stated by the university in its publicised memo encompass?
Who determines this grey area? The enforcers?
I have great difficulty with those who argue that students sign up for a dress code among others when enrolling and therefore must be quiet.
Who says one cannot challenge a system from within or shake the basket every now and then?
Back in the day when the only existing universities at the time (University of Ghana, KNUST and University of Cape Coast) were hotbeds of student activism, male students from particular halls in these universities would have turned up en masse in shorts and anklets for lectures in defiance of this fiat, daring the hapless enforcers.
As my friend Selorm Branttie rightly noted in a “Facebook” post on the matter, ‘discipline is something you build as a mindset and not as an imposition.
This is after all the 21st century. We are building a nation of leaders who should be assertive and have their own identity, not a nation of people who will be sitting down saying ‘yes sir massa.’
In a subsequent press release by the university on this issue, there appeared to be some contrition and a willingness to chart a more appropriate way forward. But on the so-called Dress Compliance Team, which is another name for a task force, the university regrettably appears intent on retaining it.
Surely there must be more innovative means to ensure compliance than a merry band roaming around campus policing the bodies of the university’s 26,000-strong student body. Imagine the University of Ghana, with its 60,000 students, deciding to follow suit.
Agradaa’s troubles
Unlike quite a number of people, I found it rather difficult to summon much sympathy for Madam Patricia Asiedua Asiamah, better known as ‘Agradaa’, when she was sentenced last week to a 15-year prison term by an Accra circuit court following her conviction on multiple charges of charlatanic advertisement and defrauding by false pretences.
The conviction relates to a widely circulated 2022 televised broadcast on her Today-TV channel (television) and on social media, during which she claimed to possess spiritual powers to “double money” for anyone who brought cash offerings to her church, the Heaven Way Champion International Ministry located at Weija in Accra.
Many flocked to her church.
The conviction took many by surprise as her public conduct in recent years did not in any way betray the fact that she was on trial.
Somehow, in spite of her antics and sometimes vulgar language, many find her brazen confidence almost entertaining and endearing, especially how she massacres the English language at times.
Beyond the fact of the conviction was the length of her sentence ‒ 15 long years with hard labour to boot, which shocked many and divided opinion.
According to reports, factors such as two previous convictions, deliberate conduct and an apparent lack of remorse aggravated her situation and impacted on the length of her sentence.
Whilst many would argue, understandably, that her victims were greedy and naive in expecting that she, or indeed anyone, could double money for them, this does not in any way excuse or justify her behaviour when the law is clear.
I believe strongly that the state has a duty to protect all of its citizens (including the greedy) against charlatanic acts.
Our media landscape, in particular the array of television stations parading these sorts of things and preying on others, needs to be cleaned up.
‘Touch not my anointed’ (Psalm 105:15) has been overused and abused as a tool for emotional blackmail against the state for far too long.
National Communications Authority and National Media Commission, over to you.
Rodney Nkrumah-Boateng.
E-mail: rodboat@.yahoo.com