CUTS International, Accra, has questioned the legal basis for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority’s (DVLA) escalating “delinquency” charges imposed on motorists who renew or replace their driving licences after expiry.
CUTS argues that the Authority cannot automatically assume that every holder of an expired licence continued to drive. The public policy think tank is therefore calling on the DVLA to immediately halt the charges pending full disclosure of the law authorising them, the approval process behind the fees and how the amounts are calculated.
The controversy centres on whether an expired driving licence automatically mean that the holder should pay a penalty for delinquency, even where there is no evidence that the person drove during the period of expiry? CUTS says the answer cannot simply be presumed to be yes.
Under the DVLA’s Summary of Licensing and Other Activity Rates for 2026, a standard licence renewal before expiry costs GH¢127. But the amount increases to GH¢204.25 where the licence has expired for between one day and six months. It rises to GH¢279.25 for seven to 12 months, GH¢315.25 for up to two years, GH¢352.25 for up to four years and GH¢404.25 where the licence has been expired for more than four years.
CUTS argues that these escalating charges require a clear legal foundation, particularly because they appear to operate as a penalty simply because a licence has expired.
The Law Requires a Clearer and Fairer Approach
At the centre of CUTS’ argument is Regulation 46 of the Road Traffic Regulations, 2026 (L.I. 2519). Regulation 46(1) provides that a driver’s licence “may” be renewed within one month before its expiry. Regulation 46(2) specifically recognises situations where a licence is renewed after it has expired. It provides that such a renewal takes effect from the earlier expiry date, unless the Authority, for good cause shown, permits the renewal to take effect from the date of renewal.
For CUTS, this is important because the law itself anticipates that licences can be renewed after their expiry. The think tank therefore questions why a person who simply presents an expired licence for renewal should automatically incur an additional charge that increases the longer the licence has been expired.
CUTS was, however, clear that its argument is not that motorists should be allowed to drive indefinitely with expired licences. Rather, it is that the mere expiry of a licence is not the same thing as proof that the holder continued to drive.
Expired Licence Does Not Automatically Mean Continued Driving
According to the West Africa Regional Director of CUTS, who also doubles as a legal practitioner, Appiah Kusi Adomako, there is a distinction between a mere expired licence and continued driving with an expired licence.
He cites that Regulation 46(8) makes failure to renew a driver’s licence as prescribed an offence. A person convicted of the offence may face a fine of between five and 25 penalty units, imprisonment of up to 30 days, or both. CUTS points out that the law provides for enforcement of the offence and conviction through the appropriate legal process.
The think tank therefore wants the DVLA to explain where its separate “delinquency” charge fits into this framework.
If driving with an expired licence is an offence, CUTS argues, there must be evidence that the offence occurred. A person who allows a licence to expire but does not drive during the period of expiry should not automatically be treated as though they committed a road traffic offence.
In simple terms, CUT says an expired licence may show that the document is no longer valid, but it does not by itself prove that the holder used it to drive.
Penalty or Renewal Fee? CUTS Wants the DVLA to Explain
CUTS is also demanding clarity over the legal character of the charges. The think tank wants the DVLA to state plainly whether the escalating amounts are ordinary renewal fees approved under the applicable Fees and Charges legislation; administrative penalties for late renewal; or another form of charge authorised by law.
The distinction, it says, is very critical. If the amounts are ordinary fees, CUTS says the DVLA should identify the specific legislation and approved fee item that authorises them.
However, if they are penalties, the legal questions become even more serious. CUTS argues that the DVLA would need to explain what law permits it to impose such penalties automatically, without establishing that the person actually drove with an expired licence, without giving the affected person an opportunity to be heard and without a court finding that an offence was committed.
“The DVLA must show Ghanaians the law, the approved fee schedule and the formula behind every cedi it collects as a delinquency charge. Public power must rest on law. If the Authority cannot point to a clear legal basis for each charge, it must stop collecting the money and refund affected licence holders,” said Appiah Kusi Adomako, Esq., Director, West Africa Regional Centre of CUTS International.
“May” Cannot Be Turned Into “Shall”
CUTS also relies heavily on the wording of Regulation 46, which says a licence “may” be renewed within one month before expiry. The think tank argues that the use of “may”, rather than “shall”, matters because courts and public authorities must respect the words chosen by Parliament or the law-making authority.
According to CUTS, the DVLA cannot effectively interpret the provision as though it says motorists “shall” renew within that period and then impose a financial punishment whenever they fail to do so.
In the think tank’s view, doing so would amount to the regulator changing the substance of the law through administrative practice. That, CUTS argues, raises a broader issue about the limits of regulatory power.
CUTS’ position becomes particularly relevant for motorists who may have allowed their licences to expire for reasons unrelated to driving. A person could, for example, have an expired licence while not driving at all and later decide to renew it before returning to the road.
The think tank argues that treating such a person as automatically “delinquent” assumes a fact that has not been established, that the person continued driving during the period of expiry.
According to CUTS, that is fundamentally different from a case in which a driver is actually stopped and found driving without a valid licence.
“Consider a Ghanaian who leaves the country for a five-year PhD programme or a work assignment. His Ghanaian licence expires while he is abroad. He does not drive on Ghanaian roads during that period. When he returns and seeks to resume driving lawfully, the DVLA’s schedule places him in the highest delinquency bracket. He is charged more because time passed, although he did not expose any Ghanaian road user to risk during his absence,” Appiah Kusi Adomako cited.
The Bottomline: CUTS Wants the Charges Suspended and Money Refunded
Against this background, CUTS is calling on the DVLA to suspend the collection of the escalating delinquency charges until their legal basis is made clear.
It wants the Authority to publish the exact statutory instrument or legislation authorising each charge, identify the approved fee schedule and explain the formula used to arrive at the amounts.
CUTS further argues that if the DVLA cannot establish a lawful basis for the charges, it should stop collecting them and begin refunding motorists who have already paid.
