Ghana's High Court in Adentan has quashed a controversial directive by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC). The directive had sought to derecognise qualifications awarded by the Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica (UNEM).
Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei delivered the decision on May 28, 2026. The ruling stated that GTEC acted unlawfully and did not observe natural justice principles. This represents a significant victory for 23 academics and professionals affected by GTEC's action.
The dispute started with GTEC's directive on November 5, 2025. This directive prevented using UNEM certificates for teaching, appointments, or promotions in Ghana's tertiary education sector. The affected degree holders earned their doctoral qualifications between 2017 and 2023. They argued GTEC had previously recognised their qualifications. Then, GTEC reversed its position without engaging them or offering a hearing.
The court agreed that GTEC's directive directly affected the applicants' rights and professional interests. Justice Osei stated GTEC should have followed due process before issuing such a broad decision. Ghana's 1992 Constitution, Article 23, requires public bodies to act fairly. It also demands reasonable conduct and due process in decisions affecting citizens. The court found GTEC's actions breached this constitutional provision.
GTEC argued it had a statutory mandate to protect academic standards. It claimed it was preserving the integrity of tertiary education. The Commission stated it had not invalidated UNEM qualifications outright. It merely restricted their future use for academic and professional purposes. However, the applicants relied on GTEC's earlier recognition to gain academic positions and promotions. Justice Osei sided with the applicants, ruling GTEC could not retrospectively undermine recognised qualifications.
The judge referenced Regulation 14 of the National Accreditation Board (Accreditation of Tertiary Institutions) Regulations, 2010 (L.I. 1984). This regulation states that revoking accreditation does not affect degrees awarded before the revocation. GTEC's argument that previously awarded qualifications remained valid was found contradictory. Justice Osei questioned what purpose qualifications would serve if they could not be used professionally. Preventing graduates from using their qualifications for employment effectively deprived them of practical value.
The court also examined GTEC's revocation of OAA Consulting Limited's registration. OAA Consulting was UNEM's local representative. Applicants argued GTEC did not follow legal procedures for this revocation. Regulators must give notice and an opportunity to address breaches before imposing sanctions. Justice Osei found GTEC failed to demonstrate compliance with these procedural requirements. The revocation of OAA Consulting's registration was therefore unlawful. The court established that the applicants had legal standing to challenge this revocation. GTEC's subsequent derecognition of UNEM qualifications was based on this flawed action.
The High Court's judgment directs GTEC and all tertiary institutions to reverse decisions against UNEM qualification holders. This applies to degrees awarded before October 20, 2025. GTEC and educational institutions are now restrained from enforcing the directive. The directive has been formally quashed, rendering it null and void. This ensures that holders of UNEM degrees awarded before the specified date can use them for appointments and promotions.