The Impact of Political Dogmatism on Students’ Academic Security in Higher Education in Ghana

Ghana’s tertiary institutions were once revered as citadels of knowledge, critical inquiry, and academic freedom-spaces where ideas could be debated freely and scholarship pursued without fear or favour. Yet three decades of democratic consolidation have brought an unintended consequence: the gradual infiltration of partisan politics into the very heart of Ghana’s universities. The Impact of Political Dogmatism on Students’ Academic Security in Higher Education in Ghana: A Case Study of Tertiary Institutions in the Upper West Region by Christopher Noyuoro, Frank Kannigenye Teng-Zeng, and Joseph Kwabena Manboah-Rockson offers a critical examination of how political dogmatism threatens students’ academic security-the integrity of learning, the quality of instruction, and the cultivation of critical thinking-in one of Ghana’s most underserved regions. The book documents how political interference in tertiary education has reached alarming levels, with government attempts to control university governance through legislation and regulatory overreach. The Public Universities Bill, introduced by a previous administration, sought to give the President authority to appoint a majority of university council members-a move that would have fundamentally undermined institutional autonomy and academic freedom . While the bill was ultimately defeated through sustained advocacy by the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG), the authors demonstrate that the threat of politicisation remains ever-present . The Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) has been accused of systematic interference in internal university governance, including the usurpation of powers vested in University Governing Councils and Academic Boards, the imposition of prior-approval requirements for appointments, and the threat of withdrawing accreditation and funding as coercive tools . The cumulative impact, as the authors argue, has been governance paralysis, blurred accountability, and an environment where academic decisions are increasingly shaped by political considerations rather than scholarly merit.