The recent directive by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) for certain individuals—including public figures—to cease using unearned academic titles such as “Professor,” “Doctor,” and “Chartered” has ignited a public conversation. While some interpret GTEC’s move as politically motivated, a closer look at the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023) reveals that the Commission is well within its statutory mandate.
GTEC derives its power from Act 1023, which expressly empowers the Commission to:
“Regulate the use of higher education nomenclature and titles including ‘university’, ‘College’, ‘Emeritus’, ‘Professor’, ‘Doctor’, ‘Chartered’, and related terms” – Section 8(4)(d).
This provision is not ceremonial; it gives GTEC legal authority to curb the misuse of academic titles. The inclusion of these specific titles reflects their importance in preserving the integrity of the higher education sector. Just as only accredited medical professionals may use the title "Dr." in a clinical context, only persons who have properly earned academic titles should be allowed to use them publicly.
This regulation ensures Public Trust and Consumer Protection. Titles such as “Professor” or “Doctor” carry immense weight in academia, policy influence, and public discourse. Their misuse can mislead the public, especially in politics, media, and education, where individuals may project academic or intellectual authority they do not possess.
It also ensures Academic Integrity. Allowing individuals to self-style with prestigious academic titles without verifiable credentials undermines the hard work of those who earned them legitimately and devalues Ghana’s academic institutions.
This regulation is in Parity with Other Professions. The Medical and Dental Council and the General Legal Council already regulate who may use the titles “Doctor” and “Lawyer” respectively. GTEC’s role is no different—only focused on the academic sphere. For instance, the Ghana Medical and Dental Act prohibits persons from holding themselves out as medical practitioners without registration. Similarly, GTEC is preventing individuals from passing off as holders of academic distinctions they have not rightfully earned.
Under Section 36 of Act 1023, anyone who operates or presents academic programmes or credentials without proper accreditation commits an offence. While the focus has largely been on institutions, GTEC is now applying the same standards to individuals who exploit academic symbols for personal gain. Sanctions may include fines, imprisonment, or both.
GTEC should not be vilified for enforcing its mandate. On the contrary, public and institutional support is vital. In an era where misinformation spreads rapidly, and credentials can be faked with ease, GTEC’s oversight ensures a measure of truth and credibility in public discourse.
Institutions and civil society should collaborate with the Commission to educate the public on the value of academic titles, encourage credential verification and expose and discourage impersonation or misrepresentation.
GTEC’s regulation of academic titles is not an attack on ambition or freedom of expression—it is a defense of academic truth and institutional credibility. Just as we demand regulatory vigilance over fake medicines and false medical practitioners, we must expect the same of academic regulation. Ghana’s knowledge economy can only flourish if its academic foundations are respected and protected. Let us empower GTEC to perform its duty—firmly, fairly, and fearlessly.