Public institutions must not use revenue generation as a justification to impose charges that lack a clear legal basis, public policy think tank CUTS International has cautioned.
The think tank argues that while state agencies need internally generated funds to operate and deliver services, their financial needs cannot override the basic requirement that every charge imposed on citizens must be lawful, transparent and justifiable.
CUTS says public institutions must remember that they are not ordinary businesses seeking to maximise revenue. They exercise public power and, therefore, must collect money from citizens only within the authority granted to them by law.
Revenue Must Not Come Before Public Service
According to the West African Regional Director of CUTS, Appiah Kusi Adomako, the need to raise internally generated funds does not give public institutions a blank cheque to introduce charges or increase existing ones.
Fees should have a clear legal foundation, be properly approved and be communicated openly to the public.
More importantly, CUTS says revenue collection should support the purpose for which an institution exists rather than create unnecessary financial barriers for citizens.
He says public institutions are public regulators and service providers. Revenue generation must remain secondary to legality, road safety and public service.
The principle is particularly important because citizens often have little choice but to pay charges imposed by government agencies when accessing essential public services.
Charges Can Discourage Compliance
CUTS warns that poorly designed charges can also produce the opposite of what public institutions intend.
The think tank points to a GH¢181 charge for amending a licence holder’s electronic records, such as an address or telephone number, as an example of how a fee can discourage behaviour that is actually in the public interest.
Updating such information allows authorities to maintain accurate records, which can support identity verification, road safety, criminal investigations and emergency communication.
But when citizens are required to pay a significant amount simply to update basic contact information, some may choose not to update their records at all. The result could be an outdated government database, defeating the very purpose for which the information is collected.
Government Fees Should Encourage Compliance
CUTS therefore believes public agencies should design charges that encourage citizens to comply with regulations, not make compliance unnecessarily expensive.
Appiah Kusi Adomako notes that if a citizen wants to correct an address or telephone number, the Authority gains better data.
“Charging GH¢181.00 for a basic update risks leaving the database outdated and weakens the public interest the database is meant to serve,” he noted.
He notes that public charges that appear financially beneficial to an institution in the short term may ultimately impose a greater cost on the public.
Citizens Deserve to Know What They Are Paying For
CUTS is also calling for greater transparency around government charges. Citizens should be able to understand why they are being charged, what law authorises the charge, how the amount was determined, and what service they are receiving in return.
Where an institution collects money under the authority of legislation, the relevant legal basis should be accessible and clearly explained.
The think tank is consequently calling on Parliament to conduct an urgent inquiry into the legality, approval and administration of charges imposed by public institutions, particularly where concerns exist about whether such charges have been properly authorised.
It says the government agencies may need revenue to function, but the need for money cannot itself become the source of legal authority to collect it.
