The recent protest by the Sumbrugu Youth and Development Association at the Bolgatanga Technical University (BTU) has sparked debate over whether their demands for the removal of Vice Chancellor Professor Samuel Erasmus Alnaa are based on genuine grievances or driven by personal interests. The group accuses the VC of failing to secure and develop a 440-plot land acquired in 2013 in the Agusi community. However, a deeper analysis of the situation raises critical questions about the legitimacy of their claims and the motivations behind the protest.
The Land Acquisition Dispute: Facts vs. Misrepresentation
According to available information, in 2013, the then Bolgatanga Polytechnic (now BTU) entered into discussions with the Agusis community to purchase 440 plots of land at GH¢2,000 per plot for future expansion. The agreement was contingent on funding from the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) and other government sources, as the institution lacked sufficient internally generated funds (IGF) to finance the acquisition.
However, GETFund and other expected financial support never materialized. Despite this, the landowners periodically increased the price per plot by GH¢500, adding to the financial burden. Beyond the land cost, the community also demanded compensation for economic trees, ritual performances, consultation fees, and even the purchase of cows—a series of requests that significantly escalated the total cost.
By 2022, the university’s Lands Committee, recognizing the financial impracticality, withdrew from the deal to avoid plunging the institution into debt. This decision, though prudent, angered the landowners and some youth, who then sought alternative buyers, including teacher unions, but failed to secure a deal.
Were the Protesters’ Demands Reasonable?
The key question is whether the youth’s protest was justified or whether it was an attempt to pressure the university into an unaffordable agreement. Several factors suggest their actions may not be entirely altruistic:
- Financial Realities of the University
Since becoming a technical university, BTU has seen gradual enrollment growth, but its IGF remains insufficient to fund such a massive land purchase. The VC’s decision to withdraw from the deal was a fiscally responsible move to prevent financial strain on the institution. Protesting against this prudent decision raises doubts about the youth’s understanding of the university’s financial constraints. - Escalating Demands from Landowners
The continuous increase in land prices and additional charges (rituals, economic trees, cows, etc.) made the deal increasingly untenable. If the youth were genuinely concerned about development, they would have advocated for a more feasible arrangement rather than insisting on terms that could bankrupt the university. - Personal Interests of Protest Leaders
Reports indicate that one of the lead protesters had repeatedly pressured the university to employ him, despite the institution having no available vacancies. This raises suspicions that the protest may have been a tool for personal gain rather than a legitimate advocacy campaign.
Was the Protest Driven by Hatred for the VC?
The demand for the VC’s removal appears disproportionate to the issue at hand. If the university could not afford the land due to external funding failures, how is the VC personally responsible? The protesters’ focus on his removal—rather than, say, lobbying the government for GETFund releases—suggests a targeted agenda.
Furthermore, if the landowners and youth were truly interested in development, they could have explored alternative solutions, such as:
- Staggered payment plans
- Government mediation for funding
- Public-private partnerships for infrastructure development
Instead, their immediate resort to protests and calls for the VC’s dismissal hints at underlying personal or political motives.
Conclusion: A Misguided Protest?
While community advocacy for development is commendable, the Sumbrugu Youth and Development Association’s protest appears misdirected. The university’s withdrawal from the land deal was a necessary financial decision, not a failure of leadership. The protesters’ refusal to acknowledge the economic realities—and their insistence on the VC’s removal—suggests either a misunderstanding of the situation or a deliberate attempt to scapegoat him for broader systemic funding challenges.
If the youth are genuinely committed to development, they should redirect their efforts toward constructive engagement with stakeholders, including government agencies, to secure funding rather than staging protests based on questionable motives. Until then, their actions risk being perceived as driven by personal vendettas rather than the collective good of the community.