GTEC Directs University of Ghana to Adhere to Approved Fees: A Comprehensive Overview

Introduction

The relationship between regulatory bodies and higher education institutions is often defined by the balance of autonomy and compliance. In a decisive move regarding the 2025/2026 academic year, the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) has issued a firm directive to the University of Ghana (UG). The regulatory body has ordered the university leadership to strictly adhere to the fee structure authorized by the Ministry of Education, explicitly warning that failure to comply will result in severe sanctions.

This development follows a period of intense scrutiny regarding the university’s proposed fee adjustments. GTEC’s intervention aims to enforce the approved rates, ensuring that students are not subjected to unauthorized levies. This article provides a detailed analysis of the directive, the specific fees involved, the background of the dispute, and the potential implications for the university’s operations.

Key Points

Background

To understand the gravity of the current directive, it is necessary to review the sequence of events leading up to GTEC’s public statement on January 14, 2026. The tension began when the University of Ghana proposed a new fee structure for the upcoming academic year. As a public tertiary institution, UG cannot unilaterally set fees; it must seek approval from the Ministry of Education, mediated through GTEC.

In the days prior to the directive, GTEC engaged with the university’s business leadership. During these engagements, GTEC clarified that any feedback or suggestions provided were preliminary and subject to the final approval of the Minister of Education.

On Monday, January 12, 2026, GTEC took the step of publicly announcing the authorized charges for the University of Ghana. This preemptive move was intended to promote transparency and quell public anxiety regarding the cost of education. Signed by GTEC Director-General Ahmed Jinapor Abdulai, the initial statement set the baseline for the fees that the university was legally permitted to collect.

Analysis

The core of the dispute lies in the Ministry of Education’s assessment of “prevailing economic realities.” Minister Haruna Iddrisu intervened to cap proposed fee increases, a decision that appears to have been met with resistance or confusion by the university’s administration.

The “Unauthorized” Levies

GTEC’s analysis of the university’s proposed fees revealed several inconsistencies that violated the Ministry’s directive. A primary point of contention was the 75th Anniversary Levy. GTEC noted that the university was attempting to link this levy to student registration, effectively making it mandatory. However, the Commission pointed out a significant chronological discrepancy: the University of Ghana is currently marking its 78th anniversary, not its 75th. Charging a levy for an anniversary that has long passed was cited as a key reason for the Minister’s intervention to reduce proposed costs.

Disparities in Broadband Charges

Another critical finding in GTEC’s analysis was the unfair application of the Telecel Broadband Levy. The investigation revealed that newly admitted students were being billed GH₵322, while continuing students were charged GH₵122 for the same service. GTEC deemed this disparity inconsistent with the authorized fee structure. The Commission emphasized that fee standardization is essential for fairness, and the approved rate for this levy is GH₵122 for all undergraduate students.

Legal Standing

GTEC reiterated that the communiqué issued on January 12, 2026, prescribing the approved fees, remains valid and in force. The Commission’s position is that the university’s internal business considerations do not supersede the Minister’s official approval. By directing UG to provide proof of compliance, GTEC is asserting its regulatory authority to ensure that the university operates within the legal framework established by the Education Act.

Practical Advice

For students, parents, and stakeholders associated with the University of Ghana, the current regulatory environment requires careful navigation.

For Students and Parents

Students should strictly follow the fee schedule officially released by GTEC on January 12, 2026. This includes the unchanged Academic Facility User Fee and the specific auxiliary levies (SRC dues, GRASAG levy, etc.). If the university’s billing portal requests amounts exceeding these figures—particularly the unauthorized GH₵322 Broadband Levy or the Anniversary Levy—students are advised to hold off on payment and seek immediate clarification from the university’s finance office. It is crucial to keep receipts of all transactions and communication regarding fees.

For University Administration

To avoid the severe penalty of losing wage subventions, the University of Ghana’s administration must reconcile its internal billing system with the GTEC directive by January 22, 2026. This involves immediately halting the collection of the Telecel Broadband Levy at the GH₵322 rate and removing the 75th Anniversary Levy from the mandatory fee structure. Transparency with the student body regarding the adjusted fees is essential to maintaining trust and preventing panic.

FAQ

Conclusion

The directive issued by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission serves as a critical reminder of the regulatory oversight governing tertiary education in Ghana. By ordering the University of Ghana to align with the Ministry of Education’s approved fee structure, GTEC is prioritizing affordability, transparency, and standardization. The specific objections raised regarding the “75th Anniversary Levy” and the disparate Broadband charges highlight the Commission’s commitment to protecting students from financial irregularities.

As the January 22, 2026 deadline approaches, all eyes are on the University of Ghana’s administration. Compliance is not merely a bureaucratic requirement but a necessity to ensure the continuity of university operations and the financial stability of its staff. The resolution of this issue will likely set a precedent for how fee disputes are handled between public universities and regulatory bodies in the future.