The Ghana Institute of Architects (GIA) says its position in the ongoing dispute involving the Architects Registration Council (ARC) and the Architectural Society of Ghana (ASG) has been misrepresented.

The Institute stressed that it does not claim the statutory regulatory powers vested in the ARC.

In a statement issued in reaction to a September 29 communique in which the ASG questioned a letter from the ARC to the Ministry of Works and Housing concerning the Society, the ASG insisted that the memo subsequently circulated by the GIA to its members did not copy the Society, nor was it provided to them despite the communication directly concerning its status.

The ASG said the move had affected the Society.

Responding to this, the Ghana Institute of Architects clarified that the internal memorandum referenced was intended solely for its members and was not issued as a public statement or an attack on any organisation.

The Institute said the memorandum was meant to update members on correspondence it had received from the ARC concerning communication between the regulator and its supervising Ministry.

Clarifying the statutory roles of the institutions, the GIA said the Architects Registration Council is the statutory regulator established under the Architects Act, 1969 (NLCD 357), with responsibility for registering architects, maintaining the statutory register, setting professional standards and regulating architectural practice.

“The GIA does not exercise, and has never claimed to exercise, the statutory regulatory powers vested in the ARC,” the Institute stated.

It nevertheless noted that the GIA has institutional responsibilities under the same statutory framework, including representation on the governing structure of the ARC.

The Institute said this makes it appropriate for it to keep its members informed about matters communicated to it by the statutory regulator that have implications for the profession.

On the status of the Architectural Society of Ghana, the GIA said it recognises the constitutional right of individuals to associate and establish lawful organisations.

It noted that ASG has stated that it does not seek to assume the regulatory functions of the ARC and that its objectives include professional development, education, advocacy and networking.

The GIA, however, stressed that registration under the Professional Bodies Registration Act, 1973 (NRCD 143) is distinct from recognition or statutory responsibility under the Architects Act, 1969 (NLCD 357). It said maintaining that distinction is important to avoid confusion over the institutions responsible for regulating and representing the architectural profession.

The Institute further clarified that the position concerning ASG's recognition under the statutory framework was that of the ARC and not the GIA.

According to the GIA, its memorandum reported the ARC's position that it does not recognise ASG as the national professional body representing architects within the statutory framework established under NLCD 357.

“That was the ARC’s stated position communicated to the GIA; the GIA did not make that determination,” the Institute said.

The GIA also distanced itself from questions over why ASG was not copied on correspondence sent by the ARC to the supervising Ministry.

It said it neither authored the correspondence nor determined its recipients or controlled the ARC's internal administrative processes, and therefore would not speculate on the reasons for the communication.

The Institute added that issues concerning the registration and status of ASG are currently before a court and said it would not seek to determine the merits of those proceedings through the media.

The GIA said it remains focused on advancing architectural excellence, upholding professional ethics and standards, supporting the proper regulation of architectural practice and promoting the public interest.

Find the full response here: