What Happened
The Universidad Panamericana (UPAM) is still operating in Panama even though the Ministry of Education ordered its permit cancelled more than a month and a half ago for “serious and persistent faults.” The shutdown exists on paper, but the campus remains open and classes continue.
A visit to the university confirmed that its doors are open, while no visible documentation at the facility appears to justify its continued operation. The University’s position has also become a test of how effectively Panama’s higher-education regulators enforce their own decisions.
The Official Order
Decree No. 5 of 2026, published in the Official Gazette on February 26, cancels UPAM’s authorization to operate. The measure was signed by President José Raúl Mulino and Education Minister Lucy Molinar.
The decree also orders UPAM to hand over its contingency plan and all academic and administrative documents under inventory to the Special Academic Secretariat of the Technical Commission for Academic Development, known as the CTDA. That instruction remains central to the dispute because the university appears to be functioning without any publicly visible reversal of the closure.
Questions Over Supervision
The case has highlighted broader concerns about oversight of private universities in Panama. On the CTDA’s electronic portal, no resolution, decree, or administrative act appears to suspend or overturn the closure order. At the same time, the official record of the National Council for University Evaluation and Accreditation of Panama, or Coneaupa, lists UPAM as an institution “without operations” after accreditation was denied in 2013, 2021 and 2024.
Those records sit in tension with the university’s continuing activity, raising doubts about how academic regulation, accreditation, and enforcement are coordinated across the system.
Legislative Scrutiny
The issue reached the National Assembly, where CTDA technical secretary Myrna McLaughlin appeared before the Education, Culture and Sports Committee. Lawmakers questioned her on university regulation, existing controls, and possible gaps in supervision.
José Pérez Barboni, the Movimiento Otro Camino deputy who requested the hearing, said the appearance left more questions than answers, especially regarding inconsistent criteria and weak enforcement.
Accreditation, Careers, and Diplomas
McLaughlin defended the CTDA’s actions in 2021, saying the commission issued a favorable report that was later revoked after incorrect information provided by the university was detected. That report was a prerequisite for accreditation.
She also said the university received favorable treatment even though it had only one active degree program at the time, while the rules require an approved campus and at least four active careers to begin the accreditation process. According to the CTDA, the campus was operating, although formal approval came only in May 2025.
Questions also remain about the diplomas issued by the university. The legal framework requires programs to be taught in approved campuses, and imparting degrees in unauthorized sites is considered a serious violation. That leaves open scrutiny over the legality of diplomas issued before the February 2026 closure order.
A Wider Pattern
UPAM is not the only case under review. During the legislative hearing, officials and lawmakers also discussed other private higher-education projects, including Universidad Americana and the Universidad Vanguardista Publies Educa (UVPE), amid concerns about infrastructure, academic quality, and approvals granted while campuses were under observation.
The debate has exposed how often temporary extensions are used for academic programs under review. Between 2024 and 2025, 441 program designs were under evaluation, and 154 received extensions. Of those, 45.5% had a favorable resolution, 48.7% were still awaiting an opinion, and 5.8% had not even been evaluated.
For students, the situation creates uncertainty about the legal status of their studies and the future of their degrees. For regulators, it raises a larger question: who is ensuring that closure orders are actually enforced?