The Traders Advocacy Group Ghana (TAGG) has demanded an immediate government intervention into what it describes as excessive and unjustifiable charges imposed on businesses at Ghana’s ports, warning that the rising costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers through higher prices.
The group, led by its General Secretary, Emmanuel Nana Poku, said it had exhausted what it described as patience, consultations and due process in its engagements with the relevant authorities but had seen little relief for traders and importers.
Addressing a press conference in Accra on Tuesday, September 1, 2026, Nana Poku called on the Ministry of Transport, the Ghana Shippers Authority, shipping lines and other institutions responsible for port regulation to take immediate action to reduce the burden on businesses.
“We are tired of endless meetings. We are tired of promises. We are tired of being told to wait. We want action,” he said.
Dispute over GH¢550 and GH¢720 charges
At the centre of the group’s concerns is an administrative charge imposed by shipping lines, which Nana Poku said was initially discussed and agreed at GH¢550 following engagements involving stakeholders.
According to him, the amount was subsequently increased to GH¢720 without adequate consultation with traders and other stakeholders, but traders and importers have agreed to pay the GH¢720.
According to him, however, the Ghana Shippers Authority (GSA) had previously indicated during stakeholder engagements that Ghana’s shipping administrative charges were comparatively high within the West African sub-region and that efforts were therefore being made to keep the charge at GH¢550.
“What changed? Who authorised this increase? Why was it necessary, and in whose interest are these decisions being made?” he asked.
Nana Poku further alleged that disagreements emerged between the Transport Minister and the leadership of the Ghana Shippers Authority over the issue, resulting in the charge being increased to GH¢720.
He accused the authorities of failing to sufficiently engage traders before the adjustment.
TAGG said it was not opposed to legitimate import duties or lawful taxes owed to the state, but objected to charges it considered excessive, unfair and inconsistent with the government’s stated objective of reducing the cost of doing business.
Claims of charges running into thousands of Cedis
The group further alleged that importers were still being subjected to port-related charges far above the disputed administrative fee.
Nana Poku claimed that some Ghanaians were currently paying GH¢16,000, GH¢17,000 and even GH¢25,000 as administrative charges at the ports.
He questioned why such costs should continue to burden importers when the authorities were seeking to reduce the cost of doing business.
“Who is going to pay? You, Ghanaians, are going to pay the cost,” he said.
The traders also alleged that some additional charges were imposed after importers had already paid administrative fees, describing some of the levies as unexplained and unjustified.
They argued that these cumulative costs were contributing to increases in the prices of imported goods.
Consumers will ultimately pay
TAGG warned that traders could not continue absorbing rising costs indefinitely.
Nana Poku said increased port charges would inevitably be reflected in the prices of imported goods because traders must recover the costs incurred in bringing their goods into the country.
He therefore urged consumers not to focus exclusively on the final price quoted by traders but to examine the various charges accumulated along the importation chain.
“When prices rise, Ghanaians must ask not only what the trader is charging, but also what charges were imposed at the port,” he said.
He said the group expected the impact of the increased costs to become more visible in the market from September 1.
Shipping lines challenged to obey Ghanaian laws
The traders also raised concerns over the continued application of charges despite what they described as directives from the Ghana Shippers Authority and developments at the courts.
According to Nana Poku, shipping companies had petitioned the government over concerns that the charges could lead to job losses.
He said the matter was subsequently taken to court, where, according to TAGG, the shipping lines’ application was unsuccessful.
He alleged that the shipping companies had nevertheless failed to comply with directives relating to the GH¢720 charge.
TAGG consequently called on shipping lines operating in Ghana to respect the country’s laws, regulations and lawful directives.
“Ghana is a sovereign country. Every company operating here must respect Ghana’s laws and regulations. No commercial interest should be allowed to operate above the laws of Ghana,” Nana Poku said.
TAGG rejects job-loss justification
The group also rejected arguments that reducing the charges could threaten jobs in the shipping industry.
While acknowledging the importance of protecting workers, Nana Poku said threats of job losses should not be used as justification for imposing costs that traders and importers consider excessive.
“The welfare of Ghanaian workers matters, but the threat of job losses must never become a weapon for imposing unjustified costs on traders, importers and consumers,” he said.
TAGG called on the President to intervene immediately and direct a review of the disputed charges.
It also urged the Transport Minister to demonstrate what it described as decisive leadership by enforcing the law and protecting Ghanaian businesses and consumers.
The group called on the Ghana Shippers Authority to stand firm in the discharge of its mandate and protect Ghanaian shippers.
Four demands
TAGG said its position was straightforward: the people of Ghana deserved fairness, traders deserved relief, importers deserved justice and consumers deserved protection.
“We do not want excuses. We want action. The Ghanaian trader has spoken. The Ghanaian importer has also spoken,” Nana Poku said.
The group warned that if the government and regulatory authorities failed to act, consumers would ultimately bear the cost through higher prices.
It therefore urged the government to treat the matter as an urgent national economic issue rather than allow it to become another subject of prolonged meetings and consultations.