Applicants' Arguments

The applicants, through the first applicant's affidavit, said they had checked UNEM's status with GTEC's predecessor, the National Accreditation Board, before enrolling, and were told it was accredited in its home country and registered in Ghana. On completion, GTEC evaluated their certificates, and mostly through its current Director General, endorsed them as comparable to Ghanaian PhDs, for a fee. They used those endorsements to secure appointments and promotions, and their employing institutions had separately sought and received the same confirmations. They pointed to GTEC's own records showing that UNEM and OAA held valid foreign registration certificates until 2023, and that UNEM was described on its website as accredited.

They argued that the 5 November letter was issued without notice or hearing, that it operated retrospectively despite the earlier "currently not recognised" wording, and that it defeated vested rights and legitimate expectations. They relied on regulation 14(4) of L.I. 1984, which preserves the validity of degrees previously granted after a revocation of accreditation, and on section 28(5) of the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023) as reflecting the same legislative policy. They also said OAA's registration was revoked in breach of regulation 24 of L.I. 1984, which requires at least six months' notice to rectify a breach and gazettal of any suspension or revocation, neither of which occurred.

They gave examples of the fallout: some had been told to stop using the title "Dr", some had promotions placed on hold, and some faced investigations and petitions over their rank and employment. A petition from their lawyer asking GTEC to reconsider went unanswered, and OAA's request for a two-year window for enrolled students was refused.

Respondent's Arguments

GTEC, through its Director General, said section 31(3) of Act 1023 creates no perpetual obligation to recognise a qualification, because recognition depends on the awarding institution keeping its accredited status at home and its compliance in Ghana. It denied that the decision was retrospective, describing it as a declaration of a status that had crystallised, affecting use of the qualifications only from notification onward. The individual evaluation letters, it said, were subordinate to institutional accreditation and could not confer perpetual rights, and its earlier confirmations rested on information then available.

On the hearing point, GTEC said it had engaged extensively with OAA, which was legally responsible for UNEM's compliance, and that the duty of fairness was owed to OAA rather than to every degree holder. It called the gazettal requirement procedural and said any irregularity was minor given the substantive breaches, and it argued that the applicants lacked standing to challenge OAA's revocation, which only OAA could do. It accepted that revocation of accreditation does not automatically invalidate previously awarded degrees, but said this protected the physical certificate, not its use within Ghana's regulated system.

Finally, it contended that certiorari is discretionary, that mandamus cannot dictate a particular decision, that public authorities acting lawfully are not liable in damages, that the application was premature, and that it abused the court's process. It said the applicants' remedy lay against UNEM and OAA.

Court's Findings

The right to be heard: The Court held that the 5 November letter had effectively rendered the applicants' certificates useless in Ghana and directly affected them, so they should have been heard before it was issued. Having heard some evidence from the applicants that they were not, the Court said the burden shifted to GTEC, which conceded it had not heard them individually. GTEC's engagement with OAA was, in the Court's words, of no moment in law or in fact, because the applicants were distinct from UNEM and OAA, had earned their degrees long before the letter, and had no connection with either at the time it was issued.

The Court invoked article 23 of the 1992 Constitution, which requires administrative bodies to act fairly and reasonably, and relied on L'Air Liquide Ghana Ltd v. Anin, Awuku-Sao v. Ghana Supply Co. Ltd, Aboagye v. Ghana Commercial Bank and Awuni v. West African Examinations Council for the proposition that fairness carries a duty to hear a person before a decision adversely affects their rights. It held that GTEC violated the applicants' right to be heard.

Regulation 14 of L.I. 1984: Regulation 14(4) provides that revocation of a certificate of accreditation does not affect the validity of degrees previously granted by the institution. The Court found GTEC's defence hard to comprehend, since it conceded that revocation does not automatically invalidate earlier degrees yet claimed they could not be used for academic and professional purposes.

Certificates, the Court observed, are acquired precisely for those purposes, and if they cannot be used for them it is unclear what they are for. The Court said GTEC was bound by regulation 14 and could not act contrary to it, and that it saw no basis for holding the applicants liable for the breaches of UNEM or OAA. It held that the 5 November letter contravened regulation 14.

OAA's revocation: On regulation 24, the Court first dealt with GTEC's standing objection. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Republic v. High Court, Ho; Ex parte Nana Diawuo Bediako II, it held that certiorari and prohibition are not restricted by locus standi where an abuse of power is alleged, and in any case the applicants were directly affected by a letter founded on that revocation. On the merits, the Court found no notice giving OAA six months to rectify any breach.

The letter dated 28 February 2024, which GTEC produced, contained recommendations made while it was considering OAA's re-registration, with no directive to fix anything within six months on pain of revocation. The revocation letter itself gave only reasons. The Court also found that the revocation was never published in the Gazette as required. Gazettal, it said, gives legal validity and enforceability where the law demands it, and GTEC could not brush the requirement aside as a minor procedural irregularity. The revocation, it declared, was not done according to law.

Decision

The Court granted most of the reliefs sought. It declared that the 5 November 2025 letter was unlawful and in breach of regulation 14 of L.I. 1984, and that its retrospective treatment of all UNEM qualifications as unrecognised was ultra vires, irrational and void. It declared OAA's purported revocation procedurally improper, unlawful and void under regulations 24(3), 24(4) and 24(5), and held that the derecognition of UNEM degrees on the strength of that revocation was unlawful and arbitrary. The provision that UNEM degrees cannot be used for teaching, promotion or career progression was declared unlawful and not to be implemented by anyone, and all actions taken under the directive were declared null and void in so far as they concern qualifications issued before 20 October 2025.

The Court ordered GTEC and all tertiary institutions that had implemented or were implementing the directive to reverse and withdraw every decision adversely affecting UNEM degrees, and to recognise those degrees without relying on the 5 November letter. It restrained GTEC and any institution acting under the directive from enforcing it in relation to the applicants' degrees obtained before 20 October 2025, and it ordered the directive brought before the Court and quashed.

The Court declined to award general damages, reasoning that the directive had yet to be implemented against the applicants by their employers and that any such action would be unlawful, since the revocation had not been gazetted. It also made no order as to costs, saying GTEC had acted in a bid to promote quality tertiary education standards, though without following due process. Solomon Faakye appeared for the applicants, Felix Awuah for GTEC, and Jemima Antwiwaa Ahwireng for the interested party.

CLICK HERE TO READ/DOWNLOAD FULL RULING