Dr. Grace Ayensu Danquah’s Lawyers Accuse GTEC of Bias, Overreach and Improper Conduct
A legal tussle has erupted between Dr. Grace Ayensu Danquah and the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), as her lawyers accuse the Commission of bias, impropriety, and overstepping its mandate in assessing her academic credentials.
In a letter dated August 13 and addressed to GTEC’s Director-General, Professor Ahmed Jinapor Abdulai, Dr. Ayensu Danquah’s legal team, led by David K. Ametefe, described the Commission’s actions as “abrasive, unnecessarily combative, and disparaging.” They argued that GTEC’s correspondence lacked the professionalism and impartiality expected of a statutory body established under the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023).
Dispute Over the Title ‘Professor’
At the center of the controversy is GTEC’s challenge to Dr. Ayensu Danquah’s right to use the academic title “Professor.” Her lawyers insist that the Commission’s conclusions were unfounded, procedurally irregular, and damaging to her professional reputation.
According to them, GTEC’s assessment was carried out without transparency and failed to cite any clear statutory or regulatory framework. “This lack of procedural clarity raises legitimate concerns that the process was unguided and influenced by subjective or extraneous considerations,” the lawyers wrote.
Improper Escalation to Political Offices
The legal team also criticized GTEC for copying its letters to Parliament, the Presidency, and other high-level offices, a move they described as “wholly improper and potentially defamatory.” They argued that an academic matter was being politicized unnecessarily.
“Your most recent letter was addressed directly to the Chief of Staff rather than to our client, a step that is procedurally irregular and suggestive of an attempt to escalate an academic issue into a political controversy,” the lawyers stressed.
International Standards Ignored
Dr. Ayensu Danquah’s lawyers further contend that GTEC has no authority to redefine or invalidate academic titles conferred by foreign institutions. They described the Commission’s view—that only tenure-track appointments justify the title “Professor”—as erroneous and inconsistent with international academic practice.
They cited global frameworks such as the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications and the Lisbon Recognition Convention, emphasizing that academic titles must be respected as conferred unless substantial differences are proven.
Threat of Legal Action
The lawyers warned that GTEC’s handling of the matter risks reducing the Commission to “a personality-driven exercise rather than one grounded in law, evidence, and internationally recognized academic norms.”
They demanded full disclosure of the processes that informed GTEC’s conclusions, clarification of its statutory authority, and proof that Dr. Ayensu Danquah was given an opportunity to respond before the damaging correspondence was issued.
The team also requested details on what appeal or redress mechanisms exist within the Commission’s framework.
Failure to provide these within 14 days, they cautioned, would compel their client to seek legal remedies, including certiorari, mandamus, and declaratory reliefs to protect her reputation.
The letter was copied to the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Health, the Clerk of Parliament, and the Chairman of the GTEC Board—offices that GTEC had already drawn into the matter.
Source : My News Ghana
