The simmering controversy between the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) and Member of Parliament for Essikado-Ketan, Dr. Grace Ayensu Danquah
The simmering controversy between the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) and Member of Parliament for Essikado-Ketan, Dr. Grace Ayensu Danquah, has deepened, as her lawyers have formally responded to what they describe as an unfair and politically motivated assessment of her academic credentials.
In a strongly worded letter dated August 13, 2025, addressed to GTEC Director-General, Professor Ahmed Jinapor Abdulai, Dr. Danquah’s solicitors, led by David K. Ametefe, expressed “deep displeasure” at both the substance and tone of the Commission’s correspondence.
Background to the Dispute
The matter stems from recent letters issued by GTEC questioning Dr. Danquah’s academic and professional qualifications, particularly her use of the title “Professor.”
The Commission reportedly circulated its findings to Parliament, the Office of the President, and other state institutions, suggesting possible impropriety in her use of academic titles, describing it fake.
However, Dr. Danquah’s legal team insists that these actions fall outside GTEC’s statutory mandate.
They argue that the Commission has no jurisdiction to scrutinise her credentials, especially since she is not a current administrator or employee of any Ghanaian tertiary institution, nor has she requested any verification of her qualifications.
Lawyers Challenge GTEC’s Approach
The response letter accuses GTEC of adopting an abrasive and accusatory tone in its communications, which the lawyers say undermines the standards of professionalism expected of a statutory regulator.
They argue that the Commission failed to outline any defined criteria, published guidelines, or formal processes used in assessing Dr. Danquah’s credentials.
“Your assessment appears to have been carried out without transparency, and without clear indication of the statutory or regulatory framework relied upon,” the letter reads.
The lawyers further accuse the Commission of allowing “subjective or extraneous considerations” to influence its findings.
The Title of “Professor” at the Centre of Dispute
At the heart of the controversy is Dr. Danquah’s use of the academic title “Professor,” which GTEC reportedly dismissed as improper because it was not tied to a tenure-track position.
Her legal team, however, argues that this interpretation is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with international academic practice.
“In the United States, from which our client’s title derives, both tenure-track and non-tenure-track appointments may confer the title ‘Professor,’” the lawyers explained, accusing GTEC of “an overreach” in seeking to redefine academic appointments made by reputable foreign universities.
They stressed that Dr. Danquah’s academic positions abroad legitimately entitled her to the title, and any attempt by GTEC to strip her of it lacked legal foundation.
Political Undertones
The lawyers took strong exception to GTEC’s decision to copy its letters to political authorities such as the Chief of Staff and the Clerk of Parliament.
They described this as “wholly improper, and potentially defamatory,” noting that Dr. Danquah’s role as an MP and Deputy Minister had no bearing on her academic titles.
By escalating the matter to the Presidency, her lawyers argue, the Commission has injected political undertones into what should have been a straightforward academic issue.
They further suggested that GTEC’s actions were designed for “publicity and theatre” rather than serious regulatory scrutiny.
Call for Transparency and Due Process
The legal team is demanding full disclosure from GTEC on how it reached its conclusions, including the specific standards and laws applied.
They also want clarification on the Commission’s mandate under Act 1023, especially regarding the credentials of individuals outside tertiary institutions.
Crucially, they accuse GTEC of denying Dr. Danquah the opportunity to be heard before issuing its conclusions, a move they say breaches the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.
International Standards Ignored
Citing global conventions such as the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications and the Lisbon Recognition Convention, the lawyers argue that international practice requires respect for academic titles conferred by recognised institutions abroad. GTEC, they contend, has no lawful basis to reinterpret or diminish such titles without objective evidence of substantial differences.
The letter further accuses the Commission of relying on “media commentary and even Facebook monikers” in forming its conclusions—an approach the lawyers said fell short of scholarly or administrative rigour.
Possible Legal Action Ahead
While demanding a response within 14 days, the lawyers warned that failure to address their concerns would leave Dr. Danquah with no choice but to seek legal remedies, including orders of certiorari and mandamus, as well as declaratory relief to protect her reputation.
For now, the matter remains a high-profile standoff between a sitting legislator and the tertiary education regulator—one that could have implications for both academic governance and the politicisation of professional titles in the country.
COMMENTS