Lawyers for Dr. Grace Ayensu Danquah have accused the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) of bias, overreach and impropriety in its handling of matters relating to her academic and professional credentials.
In a strongly worded letter dated August 13 and addressed to GTEC’s Director General, Prof. Ahmed Jinapor Abdulai, her legal team, led by David K. Ametefe, described the Commission’s conduct as “abrasive, unnecessarily combative and disparaging.”
At the centre of the dispute is GTEC’s assessment of Dr. Ayensu Danquah’s entitlement to use the title Professor. Her lawyers argue that the Commission’s conclusions were unfounded, procedurally irregular and damaging to her reputation.
“The assessment appears to have been carried out without transparency and without a clear indication of the statutory or regulatory framework relied upon,” the letter stated, adding that the process “was unguided and influenced by subjective or extraneous considerations.”
The lawyers further criticised GTEC for copying its correspondence to Parliament, the Presidency and other state institutions, calling the move “wholly improper and potentially defamatory.” They questioned why an academic matter was tied to Dr. Ayensu Danquah’s political service as a legislator and Deputy Minister.
According to the legal team, GTEC has no mandate to redefine or diminish academic titles conferred by accredited foreign institutions. They maintained that the Commission’s stance—that only tenure-track appointments justify the title “Professor”—was erroneous and inconsistent with international academic practice.
Citing UNESCO and Lisbon Convention frameworks, the lawyers stressed that academic titles should be respected as conferred unless substantial differences are proven. They warned that GTEC’s actions risked turning the body into “an ad hoc, personality-driven exercise rather than one grounded in law, evidence, and internationally recognised norms.”
The lawyers have demanded that GTEC disclose the full process behind its assessment, clarify its statutory authority, and prove that Dr. Ayensu Danquah was given a chance to respond before damaging correspondence was circulated. They also asked the Commission to outline available appeal or redress mechanisms.
Failure to comply within 14 days, they cautioned, would leave their client with no option but to seek legal remedies, including judicial review 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 itself had already drawn into the matter.
Source: TheDotNews