A lawyer, Jonathan A. Alua, has dragged the Attorney-General and the Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) to the Supreme Court over the law that gives customs officers the discretion to decide how many mobile phones and personal effects a traveller can bring into Ghana without paying import duty.
The suit, filed on September 4, 2026, is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1)(b), 130(1) and 174 of the 1992 Constitution.
The action challenges Regulation 18(2)(b) of the Exemptions Regulations, 2025 (L.I. 2514), which was made under section 17(3) of the Exemptions Act, 2022 (Act 1083).
The Regulation 18(2)(b) empowers the Commissioner-General to determine the quantity of a passenger’s baggage that is exempt from customs duties and taxes.
In practice, this is the legal basis upon which Customs officers at Accra International Airport (KIA) decide whether a traveller’s phones are for personal use or for commercial sale.
The action comes at a time when the regulation has sparked public anger.
Last week, the controversy was re-ignited when the Commissioner of Customs, Aaron Kanor, cautioned that travellers with more than two phones risk paying duty.
The GRA then issued a clarification on September 3, 2026, stating that it is “not an automatic rule” that more than two phones attract duty, and that officers assess each case based on whether the phones are new, packaged, and for personal use.
It is this case-by-case discretion that the Plaintiff deemed is unconstitutional and filed the action at the Apex Court.
The Plaintiff, who filed as a citizen under Article 2, argued that giving the Commissioner-General power to grant or withhold an exemption without going back to Parliament amounts to a power to waive or vary a tax for individuals.
Under Article 174(1) and (2) of the Constitution, no tax waiver or variation can be exercised without the prior approval of Parliament by resolution, unless Parliament itself exempts it under Article 174(3).
No such resolution, the Plaintiff contended, exists for Regulation 18(2)(b).
Reliefs Sought
Against this background, the Plaintiff is seeking the following from the Supreme Court:
- A declaration that, upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 174(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution, the power conferred on the Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority under Regulation 18(2)(b) of the Exemptions Regulations, 2025 (L.J. 2514), made pursuant to section 17(3) of the Exemptions Act, 2022 (Act 1083), to determine, without further recourse to Parliament, the quantity of baggage of a passenger that is exempt from customs duties and customs taxes, constitutes an exercise of a power to waive or vary a tax in favour of individual persons or authorities, which power has not been, and in its ordinary administrative operation is not, subjected to the prior approval of Parliament by resolution as required by Article 174(2) of the Constitution.
- A declaration that, to the extent that Regulation 18(2)(b) of L.J. 2514 purports to authorise the Commissioner-General, or officers of the Customs Division acting under the Commissioner-General’s authority, to grant or withhold the exemption under section 17(1) of Act 1083 to individual passengers on a case-by-case discretionary basis without prior parliamentary approval by resolution under Article 174(2), and in the absence of any resolution of Parliament under Article 174(3) exempting the exercise of that power from the requirements of Article 174(2), Regulation 18(2)(b) is inconsistent with, and to the extent of the inconsistency is void under, Article 1(2) of the Constitution.
- An Order directed at the 2nd Defendant restraining the exercise of the power under Regulation 18(2)(b) of L.I. 2514 to grant or refuse the exemption under section 17(l) of Act 1083 on an individualised, case-by-case basis, until such time as the requirements of Articie 174(2) of the Constitution have been complied with, or Parliament has by resolution under Article 174(3) exempted the exercise of that power from Article 174(2).
- Such further order or orders as this Honourable Court may consider appropriate for giving effect to the declarations sought, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is yet to fix a date for hearing.
End
