The Supreme Court has been asked to determine whether the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) can independently grant or vary passenger baggage tax exemptions without obtaining prior approval from Parliament.
The constitutional challenge has been brought by legal practitioner Jonathan A. Alua against the Attorney-General and the Commissioner-General of the GRA over Regulation 18(2)(b) of the Exemptions Regulations, 2025 (L.I. 2514).
Mr Alua, who filed the case under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, argues that the disputed regulation gives the Commissioner-General and officers of the Customs Division powers that should be subject to parliamentary oversight.
At the centre of the case is the authority granted under Regulation 18(2)(b) to determine the quantity of passenger baggage that may be exempted from customs duties and taxes.
The plaintiff contends that the power effectively amounts to a waiver or variation of taxes and therefore falls within the scope of Article 174(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 174(2), according to his case, requires any waiver or variation of a tax in favour of any person or authority to receive prior approval through a resolution of Parliament.
Mr Alua is consequently asking the Supreme Court to declare Regulation 18(2)(b) unconstitutional to the extent that it permits the Commissioner-General or Customs officers to determine baggage exemptions on a case-by-case basis without prior parliamentary approval.
He is also seeking an order preventing the GRA from exercising the disputed authority until the constitutional requirements have been satisfied.
Alternatively, the plaintiff wants the restriction removed only if Parliament passes a resolution under Article 174(3) specifically exempting the exercise of the power from the parliamentary approval requirement.
The case places the administration of customs exemptions under constitutional scrutiny, particularly the balance between the operational discretion of the GRA and Parliament’s constitutional role in matters involving tax waivers.
Mr Alua is further asking the Supreme Court to issue any additional orders it considers necessary to give effect to the declarations being sought.
The Attorney-General and the GRA have been directed to file their respective statements of case within 14 days after being served with the plaintiff’s statement of case.
The Supreme Court will ultimately determine whether the disputed provision in L.I. 2514 is consistent with the constitutional requirement for parliamentary approval of tax waivers or variations.
