'He is part of National Film Authority' – Kwasi Kwarteng exposes Obuasi SHTS headmaster

The central allegation is that the headmaster of Obuasi Senior High Technical School engaged in sexual misconduct involving students. The reports describe an abuse case in which alleged victims emerged over time. This matters because a headmaster holds authority over students and staff, making any alleged abuse a serious safeguarding concern.

GhanaWeb and Modern Ghana published reports about the case. One report identified Kwasi Kwarteng in connection with the National Film Authority, while another was attributed to Manasseh Azure. The headlines also reported that more victims had emerged and that the alleged victim count had reached 19.

The available article text does not provide individual accounts, dates, or the precise acts alleged. It does show that the case triggered official action. The Education Minister directed the headmaster’s suspension, while Interior Minister Haruna Iddrisu referred the allegations to the police Criminal Investigation Department for investigation.

Sexual misconduct in a school includes unwanted sexual contact, sexual messages, sexual pressure, exploitation, or other sexual behaviour involving a student. It can harm a child’s safety, dignity, education, and trust. Allegations must be investigated carefully, but the reported case shows why schools need strong safeguarding systems.

A headmaster controls important parts of school life. This can include discipline, access to opportunities, staff supervision, and the school environment. That power difference can make students feel unable to refuse, report concerns, or seek help. It can also make witnesses fear consequences.

The case is especially serious because the alleged accused is the school’s leader, not a person without institutional authority. The reports state that more victims emerged and that the toll reached 19. The Education Minister ordered suspension, and the Interior Minister referred the allegations to the Criminal Investigation Department.

Reports about the Obuasi Senior High Technical School case stated that more victims had emerged and that the toll had reached 19. In this context, the number refers to people identified in reports as alleged victims. It does not, by itself, establish the truth of every allegation or determine legal responsibility.

The reported figure matters because it suggests that concerns may have involved multiple students over time. A case with 19 alleged victims requires authorities to preserve evidence, identify complainants safely, examine whether accounts are connected, and check whether institutional failures allowed concerns to continue.

The available source text gives no further breakdown of the 19 people, such as ages, dates, or the number of formal complaints. It does show that the case had expanded beyond an initial report. The Education Minister ordered the headmaster’s suspension, and Interior Minister Haruna Iddrisu referred the allegations to CID.

Two major government responses are identified in the reports. Ghana’s Education Minister directed that the Obuasi Senior High Technical School headmaster be suspended. Suspension is an administrative step that can separate an accused school leader from students while concerns are examined.

The reports also state that Interior Minister Haruna Iddrisu referred the allegations to the police Criminal Investigation Department, commonly called CID. That referral moves the matter toward a criminal investigation, where police can gather statements and evidence under legal procedures. The source does not describe the investigation’s outcome.

These actions do not amount to a finding that the allegations are proven. They show that the authorities treated the reported case as serious enough for immediate administrative action and police attention. The reported emergence of more victims, and the stated total of 19, increases the importance of a careful, independent investigation and protection for complainants and witnesses.

Teachers who report abuse can face retaliation when colleagues or authorities want to protect an institution’s reputation, shield a powerful person, or discourage further complaints. Fear of transfers, disciplinary action, harassment, or damaged careers can silence witnesses. In this case, a report was headlined: “GES committee victimised teachers who protected girls.”

Schools should provide confidential reporting channels, protection from reprisals, and prompt referrals to independent safeguarding or police authorities. They should document complaints, preserve evidence, and separate accused staff from students when necessary. Teachers who raise concerns should not be punished merely for making a good-faith report.

The available source does not establish whether retaliation claims were proven. It does show that the allegation has become part of the public discussion around the Obuasi SHTS case. Strong whistleblower protections would help staff speak safely, support investigations, and reduce the chance that institutional pressure hides further concerns.

A safe school needs clear rules against sexual misconduct, staff training, trusted reporting routes, and active supervision of student welfare. Students should know where to seek help without facing blame. Staff should understand their duty to report concerns. Leaders must respond quickly while protecting privacy and safety.

When a complaint arises, the school should record it, protect the student from further contact with the accused, preserve evidence, and refer possible crimes to police. Education authorities can conduct administrative reviews. Investigators should hear relevant witnesses, examine records, and avoid conflicts of interest. The reports about Obuasi SHTS show why these systems matter.

Protection must apply to complainants, witnesses, and reporters, including teachers who raise concerns. At the same time, the accused deserves a fair process, a chance to respond, and no presumption of guilt before findings are reached. The reported suspension and CID referral are official responses, not final determinations of guilt.