Ghanaian PhD students in UK reject High Commission’s oath-taking exercise, cite discrimination and unpaid stipends

---

The leadership of Ghana Scholarships Secretariat-sponsored PhD students in the United Kingdom has firmly rejected a proposed oath-taking exercise announced by the Ghana High Commission in the UK, describing the move as discriminatory, unnecessary, and a misrepresentation of existing legal framework.

The exercise, which was communicated via a social media notice from the High Commission, is ostensibly designed to affirm students’ commitment to return to Ghana upon completion of their doctoral studies. However, the student leadership argues that the initiative duplicates existing contractual obligations and raises serious questions about the Ghana Scholarship Authority’s management of beneficiary welfare.

---

Students Question Rationale Behind Oath-Taking

In a strongly worded statement issued on Friday, August 7, the student leadership expressed bewilderment at the High Commission’s decision to introduce a physical oath-taking exercise, pointing out that all scholarship beneficiaries had already signed legally binding bond forms committing them to return to Ghana after their studies.

“We are aware of our annual progress review, which the Ghana Scholarship Secretariat (GSS) undertakes to validate, assess our members’ progress and renew their scholarship letters,” the statement read. The students emphasised that these reviews have traditionally been conducted through a well-established remote process involving academic panels and the submission of progress documentation.

“Due to the geographically sparse nature of universities across the UK, these exercises were largely carried out remotely by the GSS Accra office in conjunction with the Education Liaison Officer in the UK,” the statement explained.

The students therefore questioned the logic behind organising a physical oath-taking event at unspecified locations across the UK, describing it as administratively cumbersome and financially burdensome for students already facing significant financial hardship.

---

Legal and Contractual Concerns Raised

A major point of contention revolves around the Ghana High Commission’s reliance on Section 31 of the Ghana Scholarship Authority Act, 2025—a piece of legislation that the students argue was not in effect at the time their scholarship letters were awarded.

“We note with concern the consistent reference to Section 31 of the Ghana Scholarship Authority Act, 2025, a recent regulation that was not in effect at the time the scholarship letters were awarded to our members,” the statement said.

The students maintain that all conditions governing their scholarship progression, renewal, and eventual return to Ghana are already clearly articulated in their original scholarship award letters and bond forms. They argue that applying new legislative provisions retroactively undermines the contractual certainty that formed the basis of their acceptance of the scholarship offer.

Furthermore, the students disputed the High Commission’s interpretation of Section 11 of the Oaths Act, 1972 (NRCD 6), which they said does not specifically mandate that sponsored students in the UK swear an oath before a diplomat. “We categorically reject such misrepresentation of the Oaths Act because the said regulation does not state that sponsored students in the UK must swear before a diplomat,” they asserted.

---

Allegations of Discrimination and Unequal Treatment

Perhaps most damningly, the student leadership accused the Ghana High Commission of discriminatory treatment, noting that other Ghanaian students in the UK—specifically those benefitting from scholarships administered through the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) and the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC)—have not been included in the proposed oath-taking exercise.

“We find the High Commission’s letter discriminatory, particularly given that there are other Ghanaian students on the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFUND) and the Ghana National Petroleum Commission (GNPC) scholarships who are equally studying in the UK, but have not been included in this proposed oath-taking exercise,” the statement declared.

This selective application of the requirement has fuelled suspicions among the students that the oath-taking exercise may be a pretext for other administrative purposes rather than a genuine measure to ensure scholar accountability.

---

Financial Hardships Threaten Academic Progress

The students’ rejection of the exercise is compounded by serious concerns about chronic delays in the payment of tuition fees and stipends. The leadership alleged that several beneficiaries have been left without their statutory payments for months, creating existential crises for students whose livelihoods depend on these funds.

“We find this development to be a deliberate effort by the management of the scholarships to delay the statutory payments of students’ tuition fees and stipends, which have been in arrears for several months,” they alleged.

The financial situation has reportedly become so dire that some students have been evicted from their accommodation. “Since most of our colleagues are now homeless due to eviction from their accommodations, we believe that a more efficient way to validate the award letters should be through an online form system,” the statement said.

The students argued that their inability to afford transportation to attend a physical validation exercise makes the High Commission’s proposal not only impractical but also insensitive to their current circumstances.

---

Student Leadership Calls for Boycott and Outlines Demands

In light of these concerns, the student leadership has advised their members to boycott the proposed oath-taking exercise until their grievances are addressed. However, they stressed that they are not opposed to measures aimed at strengthening scholarship administration, provided such measures are transparent, equitable, and grounded in existing contractual agreements.

“Our members can only participate in this oath-taking exercise after the itemised points below have been made explicitly clear in the oath and fulfilled entirely,” the statement said.

The students’ demands include:

1. Clear timeline for payment of all outstanding tuition fees and stipends – The students want a definitive schedule for clearing all arrears, which have accumulated over several months.
2. Assurance that students will not be required to return to Ghana until all payments have been fully settled – This demand reflects concerns that students might be compelled to return despite not receiving their full entitlements.
3. Guarantees of appropriate reintegration into the Ghanaian labour market – The students seek concrete assurances about post-study employment opportunities and support systems in Ghana.
4. Provision of completed copies of any documents signed during the exercise – The students want transparency and documentation to protect their interests.
5. Online validation process to reduce costs – In the spirit of fiscal responsibility, the students called for reverting to an online submission system using Google Forms or similar platforms, which would eliminate travel expenses and logistical challenges.

---

Questions About Letters of No Objection and University Agreements

The students also raised troubling questions about apparent inconsistencies in the scholarship authority’s policies regarding post-study work opportunities in the UK. They questioned why the scholarship management continues to issue Letters of No Objection (LONO) to students seeking two-year hands-on work experience in the UK, given that the Director-General of the Ghana Scholarship Authority has reportedly criticised this arrangement on radio and television programmes.

“Why is he also issuing the same letter to students who have completed their studies, if it’s not right and beneficial?” they asked, highlighting what they perceive as a contradiction between public statements and administrative practice.

Additionally, the students questioned reported arrangements between scholarship management and certain UK universities concerning tuition fee payments. “Why is the management of the scholarship and the High Commission on an agreement for a 10% tuition fee payment for students in universities such as the University of Nottingham and Birmingham if they are unaware of sponsored students in the UK?” they queried.

---

Background: The Ghana Scholarship Secretariat and Its Evolution

The Ghana Scholarships Secretariat (GSS) was established to provide financial support to Ghanaian students pursuing higher education both locally and internationally. In 2025, the government passed the Ghana Scholarship Authority Act, which transformed the Secretariat into a statutory body with expanded powers and responsibilities.

While the Act was intended to streamline scholarship administration and strengthen accountability, its implementation has apparently created confusion, particularly regarding the application of new regulations to existing scholarship beneficiaries. The transition from Secretariat to Authority has been marked by administrative challenges, with students caught between old and new regulatory frameworks.

The PhD students in the UK represent a significant investment in Ghana’s human capital development. Their successful completion of doctoral programmes is seen as essential for strengthening the country’s academic and research capacity. However, the current dispute threatens to undermine the very objectives the scholarship programme was designed to achieve.

---

Implications for Ghana-UK Educational Relations

This controversy comes at a time when Ghana-UK educational partnerships are expanding, with thousands of Ghanaian students pursuing degrees at British universities. The UK remains one of the most popular destinations for Ghanaian students seeking international education, attracted by the quality of British institutions and the strong historical ties between the two countries.

However, the current dispute could have wider implications. If unresolved, it may deter prospective students from applying for Ghanaian government scholarships, potentially depriving the country of talented individuals who could contribute to national development. It could also strain relations between the Ghana High Commission and the student community, hampering effective communication and cooperation.

Furthermore, the students’ concerns about reintegration into the Ghanaian labour market touch on a broader challenge facing many African countries: the “brain drain” phenomenon, where highly skilled professionals seek opportunities abroad due to limited domestic employment prospects. The students’ demand for guarantees of appropriate reintegration reflects a desire for meaningful career opportunities upon returning home—a concern that resonates with many Ghanaian professionals abroad.

---

Calls for Dialogue and Resolution

The student leadership has urged the Ghana High Commission and the Ghana Scholarship Authority to provide clarity on the proposed oath-taking exercise, outstanding scholarship payments, and the conditions governing students’ return to Ghana. They have called for constructive dialogue to address their concerns and find mutually acceptable solutions.

The students’ stance suggests that they are not fundamentally opposed to accountability measures but insist that such measures must be transparent, equitable, and consistent with existing legal and contractual frameworks. They argue that the oath-taking exercise, in its current form, fails to meet these criteria and appears to be an ad hoc response to administrative challenges rather than a well-considered policy initiative.

As of press time, neither the Ghana High Commission in the UK nor the Ghana Scholarship Authority had issued an official response to the students’ statement. The High Commission’s social media notice announcing the oath-taking exercise remains the only public communication on the matter.

---

Way Forward

The resolution of this dispute will require careful attention to both the legal and practical dimensions of the students’ grievances. On the legal side, the scholarship authority must clarify how the 2025 Act applies to existing scholarship contracts and whether the oath-taking requirement is consistent with the terms under which the scholarships were originally awarded.

On the practical side, the authority must address the students’ legitimate concerns about delayed payments and financial hardship. The evictions reported by the students suggest a crisis that demands immediate attention, as students cannot focus on their doctoral research while worrying about accommodation and basic necessities.

The students’ suggestion of a cost-effective online validation process appears pragmatic and could serve as a compromise solution. Such an approach would reduce administrative costs, eliminate travel burdens on students, and still allow the scholarship authority to verify students’ academic progress and continued enrolment.

Ultimately, the dispute highlights the challenges inherent in administering scholarship programmes across international boundaries, particularly when regulatory frameworks are in transition. Both sides have expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue, and it is to be hoped that a mutually acceptable resolution can be reached that allows the students to focus on their studies while ensuring accountability for public funds.

---