Plans to operationalize Ghana’s industrial cannabis industry could face fresh uncertainty after the government declined to publish expected licensing fees at its most recent stakeholder briefing, while a farmer has mounted a constitutional challenge against what she describes as “extortionate fees” and restrictive entry requirements.
Industry participants had anticipated that the Ministry for the Interior would disclose the fee structure during its last press conference. The figures were not announced, reinforcing perceptions that authorities remain cautious about setting the cost of entry into a sector viewed as economically promising but politically sensitive.
Some industry sources say proposed licence fees could range between $5,000 and $42,000 depending on the category of operations, including cultivation, processing and export. The government has not formally confirmed those amounts.
The lack of clarity has raised concern among farmers and prospective investors that high, dollar-denominated charges could limit participation and concentrate the industry in the hands of a small number of well-capitalized operators. Critics argue that steep upfront fees, coupled with recurring levies, risk narrowing access in a sector originally presented as an avenue for agricultural diversification and export growth.
The uncertainty is compounded by a developing case before the Supreme Court of Ghana. According to Myjoyonline, Mariam Alhassan, a farmer from Techiman in the Bono East Region, filed a suit on Friday, February 27, invoking the court’s original jurisdiction to strike down the regulatory framework governing industrial hemp cultivation.
The suit names the Ministry for the Interior, the Narcotics Control Commission, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the Attorney-General as defendants.
Alhassan is challenging the licensing regime established under Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020, as amended, and Legislative Instrument 2475. She argues that the framework is unconstitutional, citing its “irrational design, exclusionary economic effect, and disproportionate exercise of administrative discretion.”
In her filing, she contends that the defendants “acted unfairly and in breach of legitimate expectation by imposing materially higher… fees without reasonable accommodation of the consultative process,” adding that authorities failed to adopt a tiered system that would allow smaller enterprises to enter the market.
At the center of the case is the claim that the government imposed “materially higher, unscaled, and cumulative fees” that make it practically impossible for smallholder farmers to participate in the legal hemp trade. She argues that the fees violate Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees administrative justice and fair treatment.
The suit seeks several reliefs, including:
- A declaration that the industrial hemp licensing framework is inconsistent with Articles 17, 23, 36 and 296 of the Constitution.
- A declaration that licence fees of up to $45,000 per hectare, along with annual regulatory levies and percentage-based charges, amount to de facto taxation in violation of Article 174, which reserves taxing power to Parliament.
- A declaration that requirements for narcotics-style transport permits and armed security escorts for industrial hemp containing no more than 0.3% THC are irrational and arbitrary.
- An order directing regulators to redesign the framework to include tiered, scaled and risk-based fees, remove unscaled and U.S. dollar-denominated structures, and eliminate transport and escort controls unless objectively justified.
- An interim order restraining enforcement of the challenged fees and requirements until the framework is made constitutionally compliant.
The filing highlights what it describes as a regulatory mismatch: imported hemp-based products containing no more than 0.3% THC, such as cosmetics and oils, typically enter Ghana through ordinary commercial channels, while domestic cultivation of the same non-psychoactive material is treated under a narcotics-style regime.
According to the suit, Ghanaian producers must navigate multiple layers of approval, including cultivation licences, background vetting and compliance clearances, with fees reaching tens of thousands of dollars per hectare in some categories. The framework also includes recurring annual levies, potential security bonds, transport permits and possible escorted movement of harvested hemp.
The plaintiff argues that U.S. dollar-pegged fees expose local farmers operating in cedis to exchange-rate volatility and impose costs unrelated to farming risk or yield.
While the government’s caution reflects the sensitivity surrounding cannabis regulation and international narcotics obligations, the combination of delayed fee disclosure and active litigation could prolong the industry’s slow start.
If the case at the Supreme Court drags on, investors may hold back capital commitments and farmers may delay crop planning until there is clarity on both the cost structure and the legal durability of the regulatory regime. For a sector positioned as a potential export earner and source of rural jobs, extended court proceedings risk pushing commercial takeoff further into the future.
Source:Myjoyonline.com
