A fierce battle has erupted between Dr. Grace Ayensu Danquah and the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), with her lawyers accusing the Commission of overreach, bias, and impropriety in its handling of her academic and professional credentials.

In a letter dated August 13, addressed to GTEC’s Director General, Professor Ahmed Jinapor Abdulai, Dr. Ayensu Danquah’s solicitors, led by David K. Ametefe, described the Commission’s actions as “abrasive, unnecessarily combative, and disparaging.”

They argue that GTEC’s correspondence fell short of the standards of professionalism and impartiality expected of a statutory body created under the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023).

At the heart of the dispute is GTEC’s assessment of Dr. Ayensu Danquah’s right to use the title 'Professor.'

Her lawyers insist that the Commission’s conclusions were not only unfounded but also procedurally irregular and damaging to her reputation.

“The assessment appears to have been carried out without transparency, and without clear indication of the statutory or regulatory framework relied upon,” the letter stated.

“This lack of procedural clarity raises legitimate apprehension that the process was unguided and influenced by subjective or extraneous considerations.”

The lawyers also took issue with the circulation of GTEC’s letters to high-ranking offices, including Parliament and the Presidency, describing the move as “wholly improper, and potentially defamatory.”

They questioned why correspondence about academic credentials would be linked to her political service as a Parliamentarian and Deputy Minister.

“Your most recent letter was addressed directly to the Chief of Staff rather than to our client, a step that is both procedurally irregular and suggestive of an attempt to escalate a matter of academic interpretation into a political controversy,” the letter argued.

According to the lawyers, GTEC has no authority to redefine or diminish academic titles conferred by foreign institutions.

They contend that the Commission’s apparent view—that only tenure-track appointments warrant the title “Professor”—is “erroneous, inconsistent with international academic practice, and an overreach of its mandate.”

The letter cited international frameworks such as the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications and the Lisbon Recognition Convention, stressing that academic titles should be respected as conferred unless substantial differences are proven.

The lawyers warned that GTEC’s actions risked reducing the Commission to “an ad hoc, slightly vindictive and personality-driven exercise, rather than one grounded in law, evidence, and internationally recognised academic norms.”

Dr. Ayensu Danquah’s legal team has demanded that GTEC disclose the full process behind its conclusions, clarify its statutory authority, and provide evidence that its client was allowed to respond before the damaging correspondence was issued.

They also insist on knowing what mechanisms for appeal or redress exist under the Commission’s framework.

Failure to respond within 14 days, they cautioned, would compel their client to pursue remedies in court, including orders of certiorari and mandamus, as well as declaratory relief to protect her reputation.

The letter has been copied to several offices, including the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Health, the Clerk of Parliament, and the Chairman of the GTEC Board, because GTEC had already involved them in what her lawyers describe as an academic matter that should have been handled discreetly.