The Adentan High Court has quashed a decision by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) not to recognise in Ghana, all certificates obtained from the Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica (UNEM) issued before October 20, 2025.
According to the High Court, GTEC failed to “follow due process” and did not contact affected individuals who had obtained their various certificates from the Costa Rican university before arriving at the decision and making an announcement on November 5, 2025, that all certificates from UNEM obtained before October 2025 was not recognised in Ghana.
According to the court, even though GTEC had contacted and was dealing with the student recruiting agency (OAA Consulting Limited) for UNEM, the decision not to contact the various individuals affected by the decision for a fair hearing was improper.
The court however, declined to award general damages in favour of the applicants, explaining that their employers were yet to implement GTEC’s decision against them.
“Indeed, any action taken would be unlawful since the said revocation has not been gazetted for the same to become enforceable,” the court held.
The court also declined to award costs, saying GTEC “took those actions in its bid to promote quality Tertiary educational stands in Ghana just that it did not follow due process”.
GTEC’s circular
Related article: Why certificates from Costa Rican university, UNEM is not recognised by GTEC in Ghana after local partner OAA Consulting breached terms
GTEC in a circular dated November 5, 2026 announced that it had derecognised and invalidated the use of UNEM qualifications within Ghana’s tertiary education sector.
GTEC indicated that certificates issued by Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica (UNEM) – including those obtained through online or distance studies or joint degree arrangements were not recognized in Ghana and that the decision followed a breach of the terms by the local partner of UNEM, that is OAA Consulting, which served as a student recruiting agency for UNEM.
GTEC in 2024 did not renew the institutional registration of OAA Consulting Limited.
The circular was addressed to all public tertiary institutions in Ghana, and it directed that UNEM qualifications should not be recognised for teaching, appointment, promotion, or related academic purposes.
The directive sparked concern among affected academics and professionals nationwide.
Following that a group of 23, composed largely of university academics and professionals, whose academic qualifications and professional advancement had been adversely affected by the GTEC directive on UNEM degrees, challenged the legality of the directive and the processes leading to its issuance at the Adentan High Court.
The applicants are Dr Gabriel Asante-Gyabaah, Dr Agyeman Ofori, Dr Twum Amankwaa, Dr Matilda Obeng Kyereh, Dr Adwoa Benewaa Brefo-Manuh, Prof Charles Akomah Bonsu, Prof Elizabeth Dzigbordi Obinnim, Prof Gabriel Dwomoh and Dr Collins Kwaning Owusu.
Others are Dr Kofi Kwarteng, Dr Eric Boafo Dadzie, Dr Laud Teye Nartey, Dr Ninnete Afi Pongo, Jamal-Deen Kukurah, Dr Bernice Serwah Ofosu-Baadu, Dr Agyei Samuel Baah and Prof and Eric Edwin Owusu.
The rest are Dr Edward Domina Attafuah, Dr Seth Amoako, Prof George O. Appiagyei Ampong, Dr Justice Ebo Crentsil, Dr Suzzy Krist Addo and Dr Daniel Korsah.
The Adentan High Court presided over by Justice Kwame Gyamfi delivered its ruling on May 28, 2026 and quashed the GTEC decision affecting the applicants.
In the ruling on May 28, 2026 [FULL COPY ATTACHED BELOW], the High Court said GTEC failed to give affected graduates from UNEM who had obtained certificates from UNEM a fair hearing before arriving at the decision.
Therefore, the court went ahead to restrain GTEC and its agents, or any tertiary institution acting in pursuance of GTEC’s directive, from enforcing or giving effect to the directive dated November 5, 2025, or any decision founded thereon, insofar as they relate to the recognition of applicants’ degrees obtained from UNEM before October 20, 2025.
The court, however, declined to award general damages in favour of the applicants, explaining that their employers are yet to implement GTEC’s decision against them.
“Indeed, any action taken would be unlawful since the said revocation has not been gazetted for same to become enforceable.
Again, the court also declined to award costs, saying GTEC took those actions in its bid to promote quality Tertiary educational stands in Ghana, just that it did not follow due process.
Application
The applicants, through their counsel, Solomon Faakye, argued that GTEC acted unlawfully by retrospectively invalidating qualifications which had already been recognised and relied upon by degree holders for appointments, promotions, teaching, and other academic purposes.
They further submitted that the Commission failed to comply with the mandatory legal procedures governing the suspension or revocation of accreditation and recognition under the applicable regulatory framework.
It was also their case that GTEC’s actions violated the principles of natural justice, legitimate expectation, fairness, and administrative legality.
They maintained that public institutions and universities could not lawfully take punitive or adverse decisions against holders of the affected qualifications on the basis of an unlawful directive.
In upholding the applicants’ submissions, the Court held that statutory bodies such as GTEC are bound by law and must act strictly within the limits of the powers granted to them.
The Court held that the directive and the processes leading to it were legally flawed and incapable of sustaining the adverse consequences imposed on affected degree holders.
It granted a number of reliefs in favour of the applicants, including declarations that the directive was unlawful, invalid, and of no legal effect.
The Court held that all qualifications obtained before the issuance of the GTEC directive remained valid and could not lawfully be invalidated retrospectively.
The Court further quashed the directive and restrained GTEC from acting upon or enforcing it against affected persons. In addition, the Court directed all tertiary institutions that had acted on the directive or taken adverse decisions pursuant to it against holders of UNEM qualifications to reverse such actions.
Writer’s email:
Follow @enochfrimpong Follow @Graphicgh
