The Supreme Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge against taxes imposed on sanitary pads and other menstrual hygiene products, ruling that the taxes are not discriminatory and therefore do not violate the Constitution.
The suit was brought by private legal practitioner, Mr. James Kofi Afedo, and the James Afedo Foundation, who argued that taxes imposed on menstrual hygiene products unfairly burden women and girls because menstruation is a biological condition over which they have no control.
In an update shared on Facebook after the judgment on Wednesday, Mr. Afedo stated that the Court had disagreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments.
“The Supreme Court delivered judgment this morning. The Court disagreed with us. In their Lordships’ view, the taxes on sanitary pads are not discriminatory, therefore not unconstitutional. Therefore, all the reliefs asked for by the Plaintiffs are refused,” he wrote.
The action, which was filed on June 29, 2023, invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and challenged the constitutionality of laws imposing excise duty and value added tax on menstrual hygiene products.
The plaintiffs contended that the taxes amounted to sexual discrimination and infringed women’s rights to education, health and work. They sought declarations to that effect and asked the Court to order the Government to refund all taxes collected on the products since the taxes were introduced.
The case experienced several delays during its pendency. According to the plaintiffs, the Attorney General’s Office and the Commissioner General took more than a year to file their responses. Proceedings were also affected by changes to the composition of the Court following the removal of the former Chief Justice.
Responding to questions before the judgment, Mr. Afedo indicated that although the panel had been reconstituted, the matter did not start afresh because all substantive arguments had already been filed in writing. The panel was presided over by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang.
The plaintiffs had welcomed previous government measures to remove some taxes on raw materials used in the local manufacture of sanitary pads but maintained that broader reforms were required to achieve menstrual equity.
They also commended the current administration’s policy of providing free sanitary pads to schoolgirls, while insisting that the constitutional issues raised by the suit remained unresolved until determined by the Court.
With the dismissal of the action, the Supreme Court has rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the taxes are discriminatory. The detailed reasons for the Court’s decision are expected to emerge when the full judgment becomes available
