The High Court in Adentan has quashed a directive issued by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) that sought to derecognise degrees awarded by a foreign university, the Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica (UNEM), ruling that the regulator acted unlawfully and failed to follow due process.
In a judgment delivered on May 28, 2026, Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei held that GTEC’s November 5, 2025, directive, which stated that UNEM certificates could not be used for teaching, appointments, promotions or career progression within Ghana’s tertiary education system, violated the rights of affected degree holders.
The case was brought by 23 academics and professionals who obtained doctoral degrees from UNEM between 2017 and 2023.
The applicants argued that GTEC had previously recognised and validated their qualifications, only to later reverse its position without consulting or hearing them.
The court agreed, finding that the applicants were directly affected by the directive and should have been allowed to respond before such a decision was taken.
“Since this letter directly affected the applicants, they ought to have been given the opportunity to defend themselves before the derecognition of their certificates,” Justice Osei said in the judgment.
The court held that GTEC breached Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution, which requires administrative bodies to act fairly and reasonably when making decisions that affect citizens.
A central issue in the case was whether GTEC could withdraw recognition of degrees that had already been awarded and previously recognised.
GTEC argued that it acted within its legal mandate to safeguard academic standards, insisting that its decision did not invalidate UNEM degrees but merely restricted their future use within Ghana’s tertiary education system.
However, the applicants argued that many of them had relied on GTEC’s earlier validations to secure academic appointments, promotions and professional advancement.
Justice Osei ruled that GTEC could not retrospectively invalidate qualifications that had already been granted and recognised.
The judge cited Regulation 14 of the National Accreditation Board (Accreditation of Tertiary Institutions) Regulations, 2010 (L.I. 1984), which states that the revocation of accreditation does not affect the validity of degrees previously awarded.
GTEC had argued that while previously awarded degrees remained valid, they could no longer be recognised for academic and professional purposes because UNEM had lost its recognised status.
The court rejected that argument.
“It is a fact that Certificates are specifically acquired for those professional and academic purposes,” Justice Osei said.
“Hence, if the same are invalidated or derecognised in Ghana and cannot be used for those purposes, then what should they be used for?”
The court also examined GTEC’s decision to revoke the registration of OAA Consulting Limited, UNEM’s local representative in Ghana. The applicants argued that the revocation did not comply with legal requirements, including a provision requiring six months’ notice to allow an institution to correct any breaches before registration is withdrawn.
Justice Osei found that GTEC failed to demonstrate that the required procedures had been followed. He ruled that the revocation of OAA’s registration was procedurally improper and unlawful.
The court further held that the applicants had the right to challenge the revocation because GTEC’s subsequent derecognition of UNEM degrees was based on that decision.
The court ordered GTEC and all tertiary institutions that had implemented the directive to reverse decisions taken against holders of UNEM degrees awarded before October 20, 2025. It also restrained GTEC and educational institutions from enforcing the directive against those degree holders.
In addition, the court formally quashed the directive, effectively removing its legal effect.
However, Justice Osei declined to award damages to the applicants, stating that although the directive was unlawful, there was insufficient evidence that employers had fully implemented it in a way that caused compensable losses.
