Educationist and corporate governance expert Mark Arthur has described calls for the resignation of the Deputy Director-General of the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) as unfounded and baseless.
His comments follow a 19 January 2026 press release by the University Teachers’ Association of Ghana, University of Ghana Branch (UTAG-UG), which called for the resignation of both the Director-General and Deputy Director-General of GTEC.
While acknowledging that organised labour has a legitimate right to raise concerns on matters of public interest, Mr Arthur said the UTAG-UG statement contains serious factual, legal and governance misrepresentations, particularly regarding the role of the Deputy Director-General.
In a commentary copied to the media, he explained that a Deputy Director-General is not responsible for executive actions taken by an organisation.
Under the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023), he noted, the Director-General is the Chief Executive Officer and head of GTEC’s administration. As such, executive authority, decision-making responsibility and institutional accountability rest solely with the Director-General.
According to him, the Deputy Director-General does not exercise independent executive authority and therefore cannot be held personally responsible for institutional directives, regulatory correspondence or policy positions issued in the name of GTEC.
He further explained that the Deputy Director-General serves strictly in a supporting and assisting capacity, performing duties delegated by the Director-General.
“Any assertion, whether explicit or implied, that the Deputy Director-General acted independently or as a co-decision-maker in the matters raised by UTAG-UG is legally untenable,” he stated.
Addressing the substance of the concerns raised by UTAG-UG, Mr Arthur argued that they relate to institutional policy and executive direction, not individual conduct.
“All substantive matters cited in the UTAG-UG statement, including regulatory correspondence, retirement directives, engagement with universities, interpretation of statutory mandates, and interactions with Vice-Chancellors, are institutional actions executed under the authority of the Director-General and, where applicable, through Management and Board processes,” he opined.
He concluded that the UTAG-UG statement offends fundamental principles of natural justice, fairness and administrative accountability.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source: www.myjoyonline.com