The Adentan Excessive Court docket has reversed the choice of the Ghana Tertiary Training Fee (GTEC) that every one certificates obtained from the College of Costa Rica (UNEM) issued earlier than October 20, 2025 is not going to be acknowledged in Ghana.
In line with the Excessive Court docket, GTEC didn’t “observe due course of” and didn’t contact affected people who had obtained varied certificates from Costa Rican universities till reaching a choice on November 5, 2025, saying that every one certificates from UNEM obtained earlier than October 2025 wouldn’t be acknowledged in Ghana.
In line with the courtroom, GTEC’s choice to not contact the assorted people affected by the choice for a good listening to was inappropriate, regardless that it had contacted and responded to UNEM’s scholar recruitment company (OAA Consulting Restricted).
Nevertheless, the courtroom declined to award common damages in favor of the candidates, explaining that their employer had not but carried out the GTEC’s choice towards them.
“Certainly, for the reason that stated revocation has not been revealed within the official gazette, it turns into enforceable and subsequently any motion can be unlawful,” the courtroom held.
The courtroom additionally refused to award prices, stating that GTEC “merely didn’t observe due course of in taking these actions for the aim of selling the standing of high quality increased training in Ghana.”
GTEC round board
Associated article: Why Costa Rican college UNEM’s certificates isn’t acknowledged by Ghana’s GTEC after native companion OAA Consulting violates rules
GTEC introduced in a round dated November 5, 2026 that it has revoked and annulled the approval of the usage of UNEM {qualifications} within the increased training sector in Ghana.
GTEC famous that certificates issued by the College of Costa Rica (UNEM), together with these obtained by way of on-line and distance studying and joint diploma preparations, are usually not acknowledged in Ghana, and that this choice follows a violation of situations by UNEM’s native companion, OAA Consulting, which acted as UNEM’s scholar recruitment agent.
GTEC for 2024 didn’t renew the institutional registration of OAA Consulting Restricted.
This round was addressed to all public increased training establishments in Ghana, directing them that UNEM {qualifications} shouldn’t be acknowledged for educating, appointment, promotion or associated educational functions.
The directive raised considerations amongst affected lecturers and specialists throughout the nation.
Subsequently, a bunch of 23 folks, primarily college lecturers and professionals whose educational {and professional} development had been adversely affected by the GTEC directive on UNEM levels, challenged the legality of the directive and the method resulting in its issuance within the Adentan Excessive Court docket.
The candidates are Dr. Gabriel Asante Gabbar, Dr. Agyeman Ofori, Dr. Tumu Amankwah, Dr. Matilda Obeng Kyere, Dr. Adwoa Benewor Brefo Manu, Professor Charles Akoma Bonsu, Professor Elizabeth Giboldi Obinnim, Professor Gabriel Dwomo, and Dr. Collins Kwaning Owusu.
The others are Dr. Kofi Kwarteng, Dr. Eric Boafo Daji, Dr. Loudo Tey Naruti, Dr. Ninnete Afi Pongo, Dr. Jamaldeen Kukula, Dr. Bernice Serwa Ofosu-Bardu, Dr. Agei Samuel Barr, and Professor Eric Edwin Owusu and Dr. Eric Edwin Owusu.
The others are Dr. Edward Domina Atafua, Dr. Seth Amoako, Professor George O. Appiaguey Ampon, Dr. Justice Ebo Krensil, Dr. Saji Cristo Addo and Dr. Daniel Corsa.
The Adentan Excessive Court docket, presided over by Justice Kwame Gyamfi, delivered its judgment on Could 28, 2026, reversing the GTEC judgment that affected the applicant.
Within the judgment dated Could 28, 2026 (Full textual content copy connected under)the Excessive Court docket stated that GTEC didn’t present a good listening to to the affected UNEM graduates who obtained certificates from UNEM earlier than reaching the decision.
The Court docket subsequently took steps to forestall GTEC and its brokers or increased authorities appearing pursuant to GTEC’s directives from implementing or giving impact to the Directive of 5 November 2025 or the selections made thereunder insofar as they relate to the popularity of candidates’ levels obtained from UNEM earlier than 20 October 2025.
Nevertheless, the courtroom refused to award common damages in favor of the applicant, explaining that the applicant’s employer had not but carried out the GTEC’s choice towards the applicant.
“Certainly, for the reason that stated revocation has not been revealed within the official gazette, any motion that will grow to be enforceable can be unlawful.
Once more, the courtroom additionally refused to award prices, arguing that GTEC had merely didn’t observe due course of in taking these actions with the purpose of selling the standing of high quality increased training in Ghana.
utility
The candidates, by way of their lawyer Solomon Furkih, argued that GTEC had acted unlawfully by retroactively invalidating {qualifications} already acknowledged and relied upon by diploma holders for appointment, promotion, educating and different educational functions.
They additional submitted that the European Fee has not complied with the necessary authorized procedures offering for the suspension or withdrawal of accreditation and accreditation beneath the relevant regulatory framework.
In addition they argued that GTEC’s actions violated the ideas of pure justice, professional expectations, equity, and administrative legality.
They argued that public authorities and universities can not lawfully make punitive or opposed choices towards affected qualification holders based mostly on unlawful directives.
In upholding the candidates’ submissions, the courtroom held that statutory our bodies comparable to GTEC are certain by legislation and should act strictly inside the scope of their vested powers.
The courtroom discovered that the directive and the method resulting in it had been legally flawed and couldn’t stand up to the unfavorable penalties it will impose on affected diploma holders.
The Directive granted a lot of reliefs in favor of candidates, together with a declaration of illegality, invalidity and no authorized impact.
The courtroom held that every one {qualifications} obtained previous to the issuance of the GTEC Directive stay legitimate and can’t be legally revoked retrospectively.
The courtroom additional struck down the directive and enjoined GTEC from taking any motion or enforcement towards the affected individuals. Moreover, the Court docket directed all increased authorities that acted on the premise of this Directive or issued opposed choices towards UNEM qualification holders pursuant to the Directive to revoke such actions.
Writer’s e-mail tackle:
Observe @enochfrimpong Observe @Graphicgh
