KEY POINTS
- Lawyers accuse GTEC bias in title dispute.
- They warn Commission risks losing credibility.
- Legal showdown looms if no redress is offered.
A legal confrontation is brewing in Ghana’s education sector as lawyers for Dr. Grace Ayensu Danquah accused the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) of bias, impropriety, and overreach.
In a strongly worded letter dated August 13 and addressed to GTEC Director General Ahmed Jinapor Abdulai, Dr. Danquah’s legal team, led by David K. Ametefe, condemned the Commission’s handling of her academic credentials as “abrasive, unnecessarily combative, and disparaging.”
They allege that GTEC’s correspondence failed to meet the standards of professionalism expected from a statutory body established under the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023).
Lawyers challenge GTEC bias and overreach claims
At the center of the dispute is GTEC’s evaluation of Dr. Danquah’s entitlement to use the title “Professor.” Her lawyers argued the assessment was unfounded, lacked transparency, and ignored established regulatory frameworks.
“The assessment appears to have been carried out without clear statutory backing, raising fears of subjectivity and extraneous influence,” the letter noted.
They criticized GTEC’s move to circulate its correspondence to top offices, including Parliament and the Presidency, describing the action as “wholly improper and potentially defamatory.”
GTEC bias and international academic recognition standards
Dr. Danquah’s lawyers further argued that GTEC has no legal authority to redefine or diminish academic titles conferred abroad. They dismissed the Commission’s apparent stance—that only tenure-track positions warrant the professor title—as inconsistent with international practice.
Citing frameworks such as the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications and the Lisbon Recognition Convention, the lawyers insisted that academic titles must be respected unless substantial differences are proven.
Failure to do so, they warned, reduces the Commission to “an ad hoc, personality-driven body” instead of one grounded in law and global standards.
GTEC bias dispute escalates into legal showdown
The legal team demanded that GTEC disclose the process behind its findings, clarify its statutory authority, and show evidence that Dr. Danquah was allowed to respond before damaging correspondence was circulated.
They also questioned why GTEC’s latest letter was addressed directly to the Chief of Staff rather than their client, describing the move as an unnecessary escalation of an academic matter into political controversy.
The lawyers have given GTEC 14 days to respond or face legal action, including applications for certiorari, mandamus, and declaratory relief to safeguard Dr. Danquah’s reputation.
Copies of their letter were sent to the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Health, the Clerk of Parliament, and the GTEC Board, since the Commission had already involved them in what her lawyers describe as a purely academic issue that should have been handled discreetly.
