Legal professionals for the Deputy Minister of Well being, Dr Grace Ayensu-Danquah, have issued a robust response to the Ghana Tertiary Schooling Fee (GTEC) following its directive ordering her to stop utilizing the title of “Professor.”
In line with her authorized staff, GTEC’s directive is “abrasive, unnecessarily combative, and disparaging.”
In a letter dated 12 August 2025, addressed to the Chief of Employees on the Workplace of the President and copied to Dr Ayensu-Danquah, the Minister of Well being, the Clerk of Parliament, and the Board Chairman of GTEC, the Commission urged her employer to make sure she stops presenting herself with the tutorial title.
)
)
)
GTEC additional warned that ought to she proceed to make use of the designation, the Fee is likely to be compelled to provoke authorized motion on the grounds of public deception.
Nevertheless, in a response dated 13 August 2025, addressed to GTEC’s Director-Common, Professor Ahmed Jinapor Abdulai, Dr Ayensu-Danquah’s solicitors, led by David Okay. Ametefe, argued that the directive lacked professionalism.
Her legal professionals maintained that the Fee’s conclusions weren’t solely unfounded but additionally procedurally irregular and damaging to her status.
ALSO READ: Commercial drivers threaten nationwide protest over deplorable Pokuase-Nsawam highway
The letter said:
The evaluation seems to have been carried out with out transparency, and with out clear indication of the statutory or regulatory framework relied upon.
It continued:
This lack of procedural readability raises professional apprehension that the method was unguided and influenced by subjective or extraneous issues.
ALSO READ: NPP grants amnesty to suspended members ahead of 2028 elections
Deputy Minister of Well being, Dr Grace Ayensu-Danquah
The authorized staff additionally criticised the circulation of GTEC’s letters to high-ranking places of work, together with Parliament and the Presidency. They argued:
Your most up-to-date letter was addressed on to the Chief of Employees relatively than to our shopper, a step that’s each procedurally irregular and suggestive of an try and escalate a matter of educational interpretation right into a political controversy.
Dr Ayensu-Danquah’s legal professionals have demanded that GTEC disclose the total course of behind its conclusions, make clear its statutory authority, and supply proof that their shopper was given the chance to reply earlier than the damaging correspondence was issued.
ALSO READ: Attorney General rejects BCEW, Commonwealth lawyers’ calls to reinstate CJ Torkornoo
They additional insist on particulars of what mechanisms for attraction or redress exist throughout the Fee’s framework.
Failure to reply inside fourteen (14) days, they cautioned, would compel their shopper to hunt cures in court docket, together with orders of certiorari and mandamus, in addition to declaratory aid to guard her status.
