High Court Quashes GTEC Directive on Costa Rican University Doctoral Degrees

The High Court in Adentan has quashed a directive issued by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) that declined to recognise qualifications awarded by the Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica (UNEM), ruling that the decision was unlawful and breached the rights of the affected graduates.

The court, presided over by Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei, ruled that GTEC failed to give holders of the qualifications a hearing before issuing its November 5, 2025, directive, which declared that UNEM certificates could not be used for teaching, appointments, promotions or career progression within the country’s tertiary education system.

The applicants, 23 holders of doctoral degrees awarded by UNEM between 2017 and 2023, challenged the directive through judicial review proceedings, arguing that they had relied on previous confirmations and validations issued by GTEC and its predecessor, the National Accreditation Board (NAB), before enrolling in the programmes.

The court further held that the directive contravened provisions of the Tertiary Institutions (Establishment and Accreditation) Regulations, 2010 (L.I. 1984), which protect the validity of degrees already awarded even where accreditation is later revoked.

Consequently, the court ordered GTEC and tertiary institutions that had begun implementing the directive to reverse any adverse decisions taken against holders of UNEM qualifications obtained before October 20, 2025, and restrain further enforcement of the directive.

No Hearing
Delivering judgment, Justice Osei found that the applicants’ right to be heard had been breached because the directive directly affected their academic qualifications and professional standing.

He rejected GTEC’s argument that consultations held with OAA Consulting Limited, UNEM’s local representative in Ghana, were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of fairness.

According to the court, the applicants were distinct from both UNEM and OAA and had already obtained their qualifications long before the directive was issued.

The judge held that because the decision adversely affected their rights, GTEC was required to afford them an opportunity to be heard before taking action.

Relying on Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution and previous decisions of the superior courts, the judge stated that fairness in administrative action necessarily includes the right to notice and a hearing before a decision affecting a person’s rights is taken.

Accreditation Regulations
The court also examined Regulation 14 of L.I. 1984, which provides that the revocation of accreditation does not affect the validity of degrees previously granted by an institution.

Justice Gyamfi Osei said GTEC’s position that UNEM certificates remained valid but could no longer be used for academic or professional purposes was difficult to comprehend.

He observed that academic certificates were acquired precisely for such purposes and that preventing their use effectively rendered them worthless.

The court held that the applicants could not be punished for alleged regulatory breaches committed by UNEM or its Ghanaian representative.

Consequently, the judge declared that the November 5, 2025 directive contravened Regulation 14 and unlawfully sought to retrospectively deprive the applicants of rights that had already accrued.

OAA Revocation
Another issue considered by the court was the revocation of the registration certificate of OAA Consulting Limited.

The applicants argued that GTEC failed to comply with Regulation 24 of L.I. 1984, which required six months’ notice to be given to an institution to rectify deficiencies before suspension or revocation and also required publication of the revocation in the Gazette.

The court found no evidence that OAA had been given the required six-month notice to remedy any breach.

Justice Gyamfi Osei also said that GTEC had not published the revocation in the Gazette as required by law.

He rejected GTEC’s contention that the omission was merely a procedural irregularity, stating that gazettement was necessary to give legal validity and enforceability to such actions.

The court therefore declared the revocation of OAA’s registration procedurally improper, unlawful and void.

Award
The judge, however, declined to award general damages, holding that the directive had not yet been fully implemented by employers against the applicants.

No order as to costs was made, with the court stating that GTEC’s actions were motivated by its mandate to maintain quality standards in tertiary education, although it had failed to follow the due process required by law.

Source: Graphic

Click to read more: https://opemsuo.com/author/hajara-fuseini/