Here is the rewritten article, structured in clean HTML with a pedagogical and SEO-optimized approach. It expands on the original content to meet the length requirement while strictly adhering to the facts and legal context provided.

Call for GTEC Deputy Director-General’s Resignation is Unfounded – Mark Arthur

Introduction

Recent calls for the resignation of the Deputy Director-General of the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) have been met with a strong rebuttal from educationist and corporate governance expert, Mark Arthur. In a detailed statement addressing the media, Arthur has labeled the demands made by the University Teachers’ Association of Ghana, University of Ghana Branch (UTAG-UG), as “unfounded and baseless.” This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and governance frameworks governing GTEC, clarifying the distinct roles of the Director-General versus the Deputy Director-General. By examining the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023), we aim to offer a pedagogical breakdown of why holding a deputy accountable for executive actions is a fundamental misinterpretation of administrative law.

Key Points

Background

The controversy began on January 19, 2026, when the University of Ghana branch of the University Teachers’ Association of Ghana (UTAG-UG) issued a press release calling for the resignation of both the Director-General and the Deputy Director-General of GTEC. The statement cited various grievances regarding the commission’s interactions with universities, regulatory correspondence, and directives concerning retirement and institutional mandates.

While organized labour retains the constitutional right to raise concerns on matters of public interest, the specific targeting of the Deputy Director-General prompted a response from governance expert Mark Arthur. Arthur, known for his expertise in corporate and educational governance, intervened to clarify the structural hierarchy of GTEC. His intervention aims to correct what he describes as “serious factual, legal, and governance misrepresentations” contained within the UTAG-UG communiqué.

Analysis

To understand why the call for the Deputy Director-General’s resignation is considered unfounded, one must analyze the statutory governance structure of the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission. This section breaks down the legal hierarchy and the principle of accountability as defined by Ghanaian law.

The Legal Mandate: Act 1023

The Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023) serves as the foundational legal instrument for GTEC. Under this Act, the organizational structure is clearly defined. Section 3 of Act 1023 establishes the Director-General as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Commission. As CEO, the Director-General is responsible for the day-to-day administration of GTEC’s affairs, including the execution of policies, issuance of directives, and overall supervision of the institution.

Mark Arthur emphasizes that the law centralizes executive authority in the Director-General. This means that any official correspondence, regulatory directive, or policy position issued in the name of GTEC is legally presumed to be an act of the Director-General, acting on behalf of the Commission. The statute does not grant the Deputy Director-General independent executive power or the authority to act as a co-CEO.

Executive Authority vs. Supporting Role

A critical distinction in public administration is the difference between holding an executive title and performing executive functions. Arthur explains that the Deputy Director-General serves strictly in a supporting and assisting capacity. Their duties are derived from tasks delegated by the Director-General.

In legal terms, the Deputy Director-General is an agent of the CEO, not a principal. Therefore, they cannot be held personally accountable for institutional directives. To attribute the actions of the Commission to the Deputy is to misunderstand the doctrine of vicarious liability and administrative delegation. If a directive regarding university engagement or retirement is issued, it is an institutional action executed under the authority of the Director-General.

Violation of Natural Justice

Arthur further argues that the UTAG-UG statement offends the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule against targeting the wrong party. The principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and fair attribution require that accountability be placed on the individual or body with the actual power to make the decision.

By calling for the resignation of the Deputy Director-General for actions that were institutionally driven by the Director-General, UTAG-UG is effectively demanding accountability from an official who, under Act 1023, lacks the legal standing to reverse or authorize those actions. This creates a governance paradox where an official is punished for decisions they did not have the authority to make.

Practical Advice

For stakeholders in the education sector—including university administrators, faculty members, and regulatory bodies—understanding the separation of powers within agencies like GTEC is essential for effective advocacy and conflict resolution.

Understanding Institutional Accountability

When addressing grievances with regulatory bodies, it is vital to direct correspondence and demands to the correct office holder. Based on the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020:

• Target the CEO: All formal complaints regarding policy direction, regulatory enforcement, or strategic decisions should be addressed to the Director-General, as they are the statutory head.
• Review Delegated Authority: Recognize that deputies and directors execute tasks on behalf of the CEO. Criticism of operational execution should be framed as institutional feedback rather than personal attacks on deputies.

Constructive Engagement Strategies

To avoid legal missteps and ensure productive dialogue:

• Verify Legal Mandates: Before issuing public statements demanding resignations, review the specific enabling Act (e.g., Act 1023) to confirm the powers and responsibilities of the official in question.
• Focus on Policy, Not Personality: As noted by Mark Arthur, the issues raised by UTAG-UG (retirement directives, regulatory correspondence) are matters of institutional policy. Engaging in dialogue about the merits of the policy is more effective than demanding the removal of an official who cannot legally change it.
• Escalate Appropriately: If the Director-General is the statutory authority, then policy dissatisfaction should be escalated to the Board of GTEC or the Ministry of Education, rather than targeting deputies.

FAQ

Conclusion

The call for the resignation of the GTEC Deputy Director-General, as analyzed by educationist Mark Arthur, stands on shaky legal ground. By dissecting the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023), it becomes evident that the statutory powers and executive responsibilities rest solely with the Director-General. The Deputy Director-General’s role is strictly supportive, lacking the independent authority to issue or reverse the institutional directives cited by UTAG-UG.

While the grievances raised by university teachers regarding regulatory correspondence and retirement directives are valid topics for dialogue, directing these grievances toward the Deputy Director-General constitutes a misattribution of accountability. For governance to function effectively, criticism must be directed at the correct office holders. As Arthur concludes, holding an official accountable for actions they did not personally authorize and lack the power to change offends the fundamental principles of natural justice and administrative equity.