23 Academics’ Careers Saved as Court Upholds Due Process in Credential Recognition

For HR and workforce planning teams in Ghanaian tertiary institutions, the GTEC directive was a nightmare scenario—a regulatory body outlawing qualifications overnight, potentially derailing promotions, recruitment pipelines, and years of academic investment. The court’s intervention restores stability but also underscores a critical HR policy lesson: reliance on external regulatory pronouncements must be tempered by an organisation’s own commitment to fairness. Employers should review their credential verification protocols and ensure that any negative assessment of foreign degrees includes a transparent, two-way communication channel with affected employees.

On May 28, 2026, the High Court in Adentan, Ghana, delivered a landmark administrative law ruling that quashed a directive from the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) which had derecognised doctoral degrees awarded by the Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica (UNEM). The decision, authored by Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei, found that GTEC acted unlawfully and breached the principles of natural justice, marking a significant victory for the 23 Ghanaian academics and professionals whose careers were directly threatened by the November 5, 2025 directive. This case starkly highlights the tension between regulatory oversight of cross-border education and the fundamental right to fair administrative treatment, with far-reaching consequences for Ghana’s higher education landscape and beyond.

The dispute’s origins lie in GTEC’s sudden reversal of its own prior assessments. Between 2017 and 2023, the affected individuals obtained doctoral qualifications from UNEM, a Costa Rican institution that had previously been assessed, recognised, and validated by GTEC itself. In many cases, these degrees were used for teaching appointments, promotions, and career progression within Ghanaian tertiary institutions. Then, without warning or consultation, GTEC issued a blanket directive stating that UNEM certificates could no longer be used for any professional purpose in the country’s higher education system. The affected academics argued they were never given an opportunity to be heard, despite the directive having immediate and severe impacts on their livelihoods and professional standing. This procedural void became the central issue before the High Court.

Justice Osei’s judgment is rooted in Article 23 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, which mandates that administrative bodies act fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with due process when decisions affect citizens. The court found that GTEC’s directive directly impinged on the applicants’ rights and interests, and the regulator’s failure to offer them a hearing rendered the decision invalid. In a key passage of the ruling, the judge stated, “Since this letter directly affected the applicants, they ought to have been given the opportunity to defend themselves before the derecognition of their certificates.” The court did not need to rule on the substantive quality of UNEM’s programmes, instead focusing on the procedural illegality. This narrow but powerful legal reasoning sets an important precedent: even a regulatory body with broad powers over accreditation cannot bypass the fundamental duty to act fairly.