The Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), currently on a national campaign to prevent the use of unearned academic titles in Ghana and enforce the law on the abuse, has concluded that the Deputy Minister of Health, Dr Grace Ayensu-Danquah does not hold the academic title "Professor in any capacity".
GTEC has consequently written to the Chief of Staff at the Office of the President, as her employer, to ensure that she ceases presenting herself as such.
GTEC has also threatened that, should Dr Ayensu-Danquah continue who is also the Member of Parliament for Essikado-Kentan to use the title "Professor", the Commission may be compelled to pursue legal action on grounds of public deception.
This was contained in a letter dated August 12, 2025, from GTEC, addressed to the Chief of Staff at the Office of the President, a copy of which has been sighted by Graphic Online. The letter was copied to Dr Grace Ayensu-Danquah, the Minister of Health, Clerk of Parliament and the Board Chairman of GTEC.
Stop using 'unearned' academic title or face us in court - GTEC writes to Chief of Staff on Deputy Minister of Health Grace Ayensu-Danquah's title https://t.co/u0EeGvR8v2 pic.twitter.com/39iyqxB39j
— DailyGraphic GraphicOnline (@Graphicgh) August 17, 2025
The latest development followed an earlier engagement by GTEC with Dr Grace Ayensu-Danquah for her to cease using the professor title or provide documentary evidence showing the university that appointed her to the rank of "Professor."
The first correspondence was in a letter dated August 4, 2025, from GTEC to Dr. Ayensu-Danquah, with the Chief of Staff and Clerk of Parliament copied.
In that letter, reference was made to a personal interaction between the Board Chairman of GTEC and Dr Grace Ayensu-Danquah regarding her use of the academic title "Professor."
In the said letter, the Commission requested Dr Ayensu-Danquah to provide verifiable evidence of her appointment to the rank of Professor with a deadline of August 11, 2025.
Subsequently, on August 8, 2025, solicitors for Dr. Ayensu-Danquah, represented by David K. Ametefe, responded to the Commission.
In their correspondence, they stated that Dr. Ayensu-Danquah had been appointed as an Assistant Professor of Surgery by the University of Utah, USA.
They also questioned the authority of GTEC to request such evidence, given that the appointment was made outside the jurisdiction of Ghana.
According to GTEC, "instead of documentary evidence of a Professorial appointment, the solicitors submitted a letter from the University of Utah, signed by Prof. W. Bradford Rockwell, Vice Chair for Academic Affairs of the Department of Surgery, dated August 7, 2025.
And that letter, a copy of which has also been sighted by Graphic Online, indicated that Dr. Ayensu-Danquah was appointed as an Adjunct Assistant Professor.
"Sir, the Commission wishes to clarify the following key points:
1. Contrary to the assertion in the letter from her solicitors, Dr. Ayensu-Danquah was not appointed as an Assistant Professor but as an Adjunct Assistant Professor, as clearly stated in the letter from the University of Utah. The omission of the word "Adjunct" by her legal representatives is both misleading and troubling.
2. According to the letter from Dr. Rockwell, the position of Adjunct Assistant Professor is not a tenure-track role. He further explains that academic position titles used by the University of Utah may not directly correspond to those within Ghana's academic framework.
3. For clarity, within the context of Ghanaian higher education, an Adjunct Assistant Professor is roughly equivalent to a Part-time Lecturer, and not even comparable to the rank of Senior Lecturer, let alone Professor," the letter stated.
GTEC indicated that it was based on the above that the Commission has concluded that Dr. Grace Ayensu-Danquah does not hold the title of Professor in any capacity.
"We therefore respectfully call on you, her employer, to ensure that she ceases presenting herself as such. Should Dr. Ayensu-Danquah continue to use the title "Professor", the Commission may be compelled to pursue legal action on grounds of public deception," the GTEC letter signed Professor Ahmed Jinapor Abdulai as Director-General added
Read also: PLAYBACK: At the vetting of Deputy Health Minister-designate Dr. Grace Ayensu-Danquah
Attached below is an excerpt from GTEC's letter dated August 4, 2025
Dear Madam,
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ACADEMIC TITLE (PROFESSOR)
We refer to your recent engagement with the Chairman of the Board of the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), during which preliminary discussions were held concerning the basis on which you currently bear the title of "Professor."
Following this engagement, the Commission is formally requesting that you submit official documentary evidence of your appointment or promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor through a recognized academic process.
For the avoidance of doubt, GTEC is deeply concerned about the inappropriate use of academic titles that have not been duly earned or conferred by accredited academic institutions. The use of such titles - especially where they lack formal academic validation-is misleading and contrary to the established academic protocols and standards governing the conferment and usage of academic ranks in Ghana.
Hon. for your information and guidance, the standard academic progression in Ghana follows this
sequence: Lecturer → Senior Lecturer → Associate Professor → Professor
It is acknowledged that in some countries, such as the United States, academic titles may be used more informally, and many teaching staff may be referred to as "Professor" regardless of their official rank.
However, such informal conventions do not align with the formal academic ranking system recognized and upheld in Ghana.
In light of the above, the Commission respectfully requests that you provide the following documentation by 11th August, 2025:
- A formal letter of appointment or promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor from a recognized academic institution; and
- Evidence clearly indicating the awarding authority and the effective date of the title.
Should you be unable to provide the required documentation, you are required to immediately cease the use of the title "Professor."
Furthermore, you must provide verifiable evidence confirming the withdrawal of the title from all relevant platforms, including but not limited to:
- Official documents
- Institutional profiles
- Letterheads
- Any other public or professional representations
In accordance with GTEC's mandate to uphold academic integrity within Ghana's higher education system, please be advised that until the requested documentation is received and verified, you are not to use the title "Professor" in any institutional, professional, or public capacity.
Please note that this correspondence is being copied to your employer, through the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Republic of Ghana.
Additionally, the Clerk of Parliament of the Republic of Ghana, in view of your role as the Member of Parliament for the Essikado-Ketan Constituency, has also been copied for appropriate action.
The Commission expects your full cooperation. Please be advised that failure to comply with this directive
may result in the application of appropriate sanctions.
Also attached below is a copy of the letter from the University of Utah, signed by Prof. W. Bradford Rockwell, Vice Chair for Academic Affairs of the Department of Surgery, dated August 7, 2025.
Dear Sir/Madam.
Grace Ayensu-Danquah, MD is an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery at the Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah.
Her important academic contributions are organized through the Center for Global Surgery, a component of the Surgery Department.
Being the Vice Chair for Academic Affairs for the Surgery Department, I oversee academic appointments and promotions. Being an honorary member of the Ghana College of Physicians and Surgeons and the West African College of Surgeons, I have some basic knowledge of academic appointments in Ghana.
Our academic position nomenclature does not exactly translate to comparable academic positions in Ghana. The different tracks give some information on a faculty member's academic work. Tenure track applies to faculty members with clinical and significant research/administrative duties. Clinical track signifies significant clinical duties with some research/administrative/teaching duties.
Research track is for research faculty, most of whom are PhD. Adjunct track identifies faculty who work in other departments, other schools, or other countries, but contribute to the University of Utah Department of Surgery through clinical, research teaching or administrative duties. Adjunct faculty are important contributors to the academic mission.
Sincerely yours,
Attached below is a copy of the letter from the solicitors for Dr Ayensu-Danquah dated August 8, 2025, responding to the GTEC letter dated August 4, 2025
Dear Sir,
RE : REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ACADEMIC TITLE (PROFESSOR)
Your letter titled above, dated 4th August, 2025, and referenced as AC81/0/01, has been referred to us by our client Honourable Dr. Grace Ayensu Danquah, Member of Parliament for Essikado-Ketan and Deputy Minister of Health.
Our instructions are to respond to your said letter which we hereby do as follows:
- that our client was appointed an Assistant Professor of Surgery by the University of Utah in the United States of America, evidenced by the letter dated August 7, 2025 (a copy is hereto attached for your information);
- that our client has nowhere made a claim that she had earned her professorship from a university or any institution
of higher learning in Ghana, which would require your acclaimed Ghanaian criteria to apply; - that our client is not aware that a professorship conferred by a foreign institution of higher learning needs accreditation in
Ghana to be valid or used; - that the law applicable to that of an academic title is the law of the place of conferment, and not Ghanaian law as you assert;
- that the request to our client from GTEC is utterly without basis, and is intended only for public gallery;
- that it appears GTEC is overstepping its authority and appropriate functions under the law creating it, for what appears to be a purely political purpose, i.e., to cause unjustified embarrassment to Dr. Ayensu Danquah;
- that the tone of your letter is inappropriately condescending toward an elected Member of Parliament and Deputy Minister of Health, who is a person of extraordinary academic and medical qualifications;
- that it is curious that your letter, rather than focus on Dr. Ayensu Danquah's formidable credentials and experience for
her important duties in support of the Ghanian people and the Ghanian healthcare system, instead focuses on the use
of the academic title "professor," which was conferred by a highly regarded American University and has no bearing
whatsoever on Dr. Ayensu Danquah's ability to perform her public duties; - that while your letter acknowledges that the use of academic titles differs by country, hopefully you are not seeking to assert that such titles require accreditation, reevaluation, or regulatory approval by your office.
In general, we find your letter to be an unjustified attempt to intimidate our client and to publicly distract others from her
accomplishments. Rather than be subjected to your criticisms and petty wordsmithing, she should be praised for voluntarily
deploying her remarkable education and professional experience in the service of her fellow citizens of Ghana.
It is our hope that you would exhibit some moderation in your future conduct towards her and in your exercise of your statutory
authority.
We hope the information provided herein by our client, through us, satisfies your request. Please note that this correspondence is being copied to each recipient of your letter of 4th August to Dr. Ayensu Danquah.
Yours faithfully,
David K. Ametepe, Esq.
Also attached below is another letter from Dr Ayensu-Danquah's lawyer reacting to the letter addressed to the Chief of Staff
13TH AUGUST, 2025.
PROFESSOR AHMED JINAPOR ABDULAI
(DIRECTOR GENERAL)
GHANA TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION (GTEC)
PO BOX MB28, ACCRA
EAST LEGON -TRINITY -IPS ROAD.
Dear Sir,
RE: RESPONSE TO CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING HONOURABLE DR GRACE AYENSU DANQUAH
We act as solicitors for Honourable Dr. Grace Ayensu Danquah and write in response to your recent letters regarding your purported assessment of her academic and professional credentials.
Our client is deeply displeased, not only by the conclusions you have reached, but by the manner in which your letters have been framed. The tone adopted has been abrasive, unnecessarily combative, and in parts, disparaging. The communications, in our respectful view, fall short of the standards of professionalism, impartiality, and courtesy that should characterise the actions of a statutory administrative body established under the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023).
We note with concern the absence of any reference to defined criteria, published guidelines, or formal standards by which her credentials were assessed. The assessment appears to have been carried out without transparency, and without clear indication of the statutory or regulatory framework relied upon. This lack of procedural clarity raises legitimate apprehension that the process was unguided and influenced by subjective or extraneous considerations.
Most troublingly, your letters have been copied to officials in Parliament and even at the Presidency, creating the impression of misconduct in connection with her tenure as a Parliamentarian and Deputy Minister. These are elective and appointive offices respectively, not positions to which she applied using her academic credentials as the basis for eligibility. It is therefore wholly improper, and potentially defamatory, to circulate such correspondence in a manner that conflates her political service with an unproven dispute over academic titles. This impropriety is further compounded by the fact that 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.
Given the posture the Commission has adopted to date, we would not be surprised if you further to place the contents of your correspondence in the public domain, as your actions thus far suggest a greater interest in publicity and theatre than in quiet rigour, fairness, and adherence to statutory mandate.
We also note with dismay the insinuation, whether by direct statement or innuendo, that our client may have used unearned or improperly obtained credentials to secure employment or commit fraud. Such allegations are grave, and in the absence of proven fact and due process, they are prejudicial to her reputation and contrary to the principles of administrative fairness.
Further, there is absolutely no legal or professional prohibition against our client addressing herself as “Professor,” particularly as this is consistent with her recognised academic title in the United States. Your correspondence appears to proceed on a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty positions. The Commission’s apparent view that only tenure-track status entitles an academic to be addressed as “Professor” is erroneous, inconsistent with international academic practice, and an overreach of your mandate. In the United States, from which our client’s title derives, both tenure-track and non-tenure-track appointments may confer the title “Professor,” and your misinterpretation on this point cannot lawfully diminish her right to be addressed accordingly.
In accordance with the duties of your office under sections 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 of Act 1023, and the requirements of procedural fairness inherent in Ghanaian administrative law, we require that the Commission:
Disclose in full the process followed in arriving at your conclusions, including the specific standards, benchmarks, and legal or regulatory provisions relied upon;
Identify the statutory or regulatory basis upon which you have assumed jurisdiction to assess the credentials of an individual who is not a current administrator or employee of a tertiary education institution;
Clarify the internal and statutory mechanisms for appeal or redress available to persons aggrieved by your determinations, including timelines, procedural requirements, and the forum of appeal;
Set out your interpretation of your mandate under Act 1023 in relation to the verification of credentials of persons outside tertiary education institutions, including whether such an interpretation has been publicly consulted upon or published; and
Provide evidence that our client was afforded the due and well outlined opportunity to be heard and to make representations before your findings and the impugned correspondences were issued.
Section 7 of Act 1023 restricts the Commission’s regulatory functions to the implementation of approved regulations and standards with respect to tertiary education institutions and to the verification of the authenticity of certificates, diplomas and degrees upon request. Section 8 further provides that the recognition and determination of equivalencies of degrees must be conducted “in accordance with the standards and guidelines set by the Commission.”
First, at no point has our client requested that GTEC verify her academic certificates, diplomas, or degrees. Nor has the Commission at any time formally requested to review or verify those qualifications. Had such a request been made, and had the Commission confined itself to that statutory remit, it would have confirmed without difficulty that our client holds academic qualifications from institutions of the highest international repute.
Instead, the Commission appears to have embarked upon an entirely separate and unauthorised line of inquiry, focusing not on the authenticity of her qualifications but on her use of an academic title. This is a matter wholly outside the statutory scope of your verification powers. Rather than acknowledging that a respected academic institution has, in fact, appointed her to a position which confers that title, the Commission elected to issue dismissive and conclusory statements suggesting that she was “no more than a part-time lecturer.” This is an extremely unwarranted and unfounded conclusion, unsupported by any objective assessment or evidence.
Moreover, the Commission has no established processes, guidelines, or comparative frameworks for distinguishing and interpreting academic titles across different countries and jurisdictions. Without such tools, there is no objective or lawful basis upon which to discount or reclassify an academic appointment made by a recognised institution.
The Commission has provided no evidence of any criteria or methodology that could competently differentiate, for example, a Maître de conférences from a Reader, a Professor of Surgery from a Clinical Professor, or a Professeur agrégé (PRAG) from a Professeur certifié. In the absence of such a framework, any attempt to redefine or diminish a foreign-conferred title is speculative, subjective, and ultra vires.
The approach taken here - reacting to media commentary, and apparently even relying on Facebook monikers - is not reflective of an institution exercising its mandate with academic integrity, scholarly rigour, or institutional modesty. It gives the appearance of an ad hoc, slightly vindictive and personality-driven exercise, rather than one grounded in law, evidence, and internationally recognised academic norms. Such an approach cannot withstand scrutiny, whether in the forum of public administration or before the courts.
Internationally, the recognition and use of academic titles is governed by established comparative frameworks, not by ad hoc national reinterpretation. Instruments such as the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education (2019) and the Lisbon Recognition Convention require that national bodies respect the formal appointments and titles conferred by recognised institutions abroad, unless substantial differences can be demonstrated.
Similarly, within the European Higher Education Area under the Bologna Process, distinctions between professorial ranks (including Maître de conférences, Reader, Professor, Clinical Professor, and Professeur agrégé) are understood in their national contexts and not redefined by foreign regulators without expert comparative review. In the United States, faculty appointment policies at accredited universities confirm that both tenure-track and non-tenure-track appointments may carry the title “Professor” without distinction in form of address. These frameworks emphasise that recognition decisions must be evidence-based, grounded in comparative academic norms, and made with deference to the appointing institution - none of which appears to have guided the Commission’s approach in this matter.
While it is acknowledged that these international instruments such as the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education (2019) and the Lisbon Recognition Convention focus primarily on the recognition of academic qualifications (degrees, diplomas, and certificates), their underlying principles are directly relevant by analogy to academic titles.
Where a recognised higher education institution confers both a qualification and a formal academic appointment, the professional title attached to that appointment is an inseparable incident of the credential and the role. Recognition frameworks require that the qualification and its associated academic status be respected in their country of origin unless substantial differences are objectively demonstrated through a transparent and documented process. By seeking to reinterpret or diminish the professorial title conferred by a reputable foreign institution - without any comparative framework or expert basis - the Commission departs from these internationally accepted norms and substitutes personal conjecture for evidence-based evaluation.
It is also noteworthy that the principles of good administration require that statutory bodies act with due courtesy, avoid emotive or accusatory language in official correspondence, and maintain neutrality in the absence of proven misconduct. The accusatory tone of your correspondence, the circulation of these letters to political offices unconnected to the matter, and the confusion over basic academic norms give rise to the appearance of bias and undermine public confidence in the Commission’s work.
We must therefore register our strong disagreement with your conclusions and characterisation of our client’s credentials. Until you have provided the information requested above, the basis and propriety of your assessment remain in serious doubt.
For completeness, we note that we are copying this correspondence to the various individuals and offices to whom your prior letters were circulated, including officials in Parliament and at the Presidency. We do so not because we consider such dissemination to have been appropriate, but because those parties have now been unnecessarily drawn into the matter by the Commission’s own actions. In particular, your most recent letter was addressed directly to the Chief of Staff rather than to our client, an approach that is highly irregular and inconsistent with the principles of direct engagement and procedural fairness. Having involved such high-level offices in an issue that should have been addressed with our client in a professional and discreet manner, it is now necessary that they are fully apprised of the concerns raised herein.
Finally, we request that you respond to this letter within fourteen (14) days of receipt, with full disclosure of the documents, processes, and legal provisions relied upon, failing which our client reserves all her rights to seek appropriate remedies including orders of certiorari and mandamus, as well as declaratory relief to protect her reputation and professional standing.
We trust that this matter will receive your urgent attention and that the Commission will take steps to realign its approach to ensure that its actions remain within the confines of the law and the principles of fair administrative justice.
Yours faithfully,
…………………..
DAVID K. AMETEFE, ESQ.
CC : 1. CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
REPUBLIC OF GHANA
2. HON. MINISTER OF HEALTH, ACCRA
3. CLERK OF PARLIAMENT
4. CHAIRMAN, GTEC BOARD
5. oHON. DR. GRACE l DANQUAH (MP).
Writer's email: enoch.frimpong@graphic.com.gh
Follow @enochfrimpong Follow @Graphicgh
