Accreditation, equivalence, and institutional memory: Re-examining Ghana’s foreign doctorate debate through policy, precedent, and due process

By Samuel Lartey(Prof)

Beyond the Headline

In late 2024 and into 2025, public discourse in Ghana became sharply animated by a declaration from the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) that “most foreign institutions awarding doctorate degrees to Ghanaians have no accreditation.” The statement, widely reported and heavily debated, struck at the heart of academic legitimacy, professional credibility, and regulatory trust.

Yet, beyond the headline lies a deeper, more complex policy narrative, one rooted in Ghana’s long history of structured accreditation, international recognition, equivalence assessment, and state-issued verification letters, stretching from the era of the National Accreditation Board (NAB) under the Ministry of Education to the present-day GTEC.

This article examines the issue not as a confrontation but as a policy-continuity challenge, interrogating how Ghana historically accepted foreign universities, how graduates were officially verified and absorbed into national systems, and why institutional memory now matters as much as institutional reform.

A Brief History of Accreditation in Ghana: From NAB to GTEC

\xa0The National Accreditation Board Era (1993–2020)

Ghana’s modern accreditation regime was formally established in 1993 by the National Accreditation Board (NAB), which operates under the Ministry of Education. For nearly three decades, NAB served as the statutory body responsible for:

Accrediting public and private tertiary institutions in Ghana
Recognising foreign universities accredited in their home jurisdictions
Conducting credential evaluation and equivalence assessments for graduates
Issuing official verification and recognition letters, signed by authorised officers

During this period, thousands of Ghanaians pursued postgraduate and doctoral education abroad, particularly in:

The United Kingdom and Europe
North America
Asia
Selected private and state-regulated institutions elsewhere

Crucially, Ghana’s policy position at the time was not isolationist. Instead, it followed a recognition-by-origin principle:

This approach aligned with global best practice and UNESCO-supported norms on cross-border higher education

\xa0Two Distinct but Complementary Processes

Under NAB (and later GTEC), foreign qualifications passed through two different regulatory gateways, which are often misunderstood today.

Process One: Institutional Recognition

NAB assessed whether the foreign university itself was recognised or accredited in its home country
Where satisfied, NAB issued official recognition letters, confirming that the institution was legitimate for academic consideration in Ghana
These letters bore official letterheads, reference numbers, signatures, and institutional seals

Process Two: Certificate Verification and Equivalence

After graduation, students submitted their certificates and transcripts
NAB conducted verification and comparability assessments, examining:
- Mode of study
- Entry requirements
- Duration and credit structure
- Academic rigour
Successful applicants received formal equivalence or verification letters, allowing:
- Use of the qualification for employment
- Promotion in public service
- Academic progression
- Professional recognition

These were not informal practices. They were state actions, carried out within law, and relied upon by ministries, universities, regulatory bodies, and employers.

The GTEC Transition: Reform Without Erasure

Act 1023 and Institutional Continuity

In 2020, Ghana enacted the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023), merging NAB, NABPTEX, and NCTE into the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC).

Importantly:

GTEC inherited the legal mandates, records, and institutional memory of NAB
Decisions taken under NAB were not annulled by default
Administrative continuity is a foundational principle of public law

In governance terms, a regulator does not nullify its own historical acts without due process.

The Core Tension: Past Recognition Versus Present Reassessment

The current controversy arises from a temporal collision:

Institutions once recognised as legitimate in their home countries
Degrees once verified and accepted through official Ghanaian processes
Letters once signed by authorised officers of the state
Now being publicly questioned or dismissed in a new regulatory posture

This tension is particularly sensitive because some of the earlier recognition and verification letters were signed by senior officials who are still active within the current regulatory architecture, including leadership at GTEC.

This is not an accusation; it is a matter of institutional fact.

The question, therefore, is not simply:esome foreign institutions, weak or substandard?

But also:

Why Blanket Invalidations Are Problematic

\xa0Regulatory Certainty and Legitimate Expectation

Public administration operates on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. When a state authority:

Officially recognises an institution
Verifies a qualification
Allows its use for years in public and private life

The beneficiary has a reasonable expectation that the decision will not be retrospectively invalidated without due process.

\xa0Distinguishing Fraud from Policy Evolution

There is a vital distinction between:

Fraudulent, honorary, or diploma-mill degrees, and
Degrees earned through institutions once recognised under existing policy frameworks

Conflating the two risks:

Punishing compliance
Undermining trust in regulatory institutions
Creating fear rather than reform

\xa0Ghana’s Global Standing

Ghana has long positioned itself as a rule-based, internationally engaged education system. Abrupt delegitimisation of previously recognised foreign qualifications could:

Harm international academic mobility
Expose the state to legal challenges
Discourage legitimate cross-border education partnerships

A More Sustainable Path Forward

The solution lies not in denial, but in structured transition management:

Clear Cut-Off Dates
- New, stricter standards should apply prospectively, not retroactively
Grandfathering of Verified Qualifications
- Degrees officially recognised and verified under NAB or early GTEC regimes should retain validity
Targeted Audits, Not Broad Condemnations
- Focus on demonstrably fraudulent providers, not entire cohorts
Public Disclosure with Documentation
- Where a degree is questioned, the basis should be documentary, not declaratory
Institutional Memory as a Governance Asset
- Past decisions are not embarrassments; they are policy data

Neither Correct nor Incorrect Decision: Reform With Integrity, Not Amnesia

Ghana’s accreditation journey, from the Ministry of Education through the National Accreditation Board to GTEC, reflects a maturing regulatory system, not a broken one.

The current debate on foreign doctorate degrees should therefore be approached as: