A Legal Practitioner, Jonathan Alua has sued the Attorney-General and the Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) over mobile phones and personal belongings import duty law for travellers.
His suit follows a video which recently circulated online depicting Aaron Kanor, the Commissioner of Customs Division, indicating that there is going to be enforcement at all entry points for any traveller carrying more than two mobile phones into Ghana to pay Customs duty.
In a writ filed on September 4, 2026, Jonathan Alua, the applicant, argued that the GRA cannot unilaterally take a decision to waive or vary duties in favour of individual persons or authorities without Parliamentary approval.
He is further asking the Supreme Court to declare regulation 18(2)(b) of L.I. 2514 which purports to authorise the Commissioner-General and its officers the power to grant or withhold tax exemption under section 17(1) of Act 1983 to individual passengers as inconsistent and void under, Article 1(2) of the Constitution.
The applicant wants the Supreme Court to order the Attorney-General to restrain the Commissioner-General and Customs officers from exercising their discretionary power under Regulation 18(2)(b) of L.I. 2514 to grant or refuse tax exemption under section 17(1) of Act 1083 until Parliament has by resolution exempted the exercise of that discretionary power under Article 174(2).
The applicant is also asking for costs and any further orders the court considers necessary to enforce the declarations sought.
Reliefs sought
1. 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… 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.
.2. A declaration that, to the extent that Regulation 18(2)(b) of L.I. 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 1983 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.
3. 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(1) of Act 1083 on an individualised, case-by-case basis, until such time as the requirements of Article 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).
4. 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.
Mr Aaron Kanor, speaking to the media during a recent visit to the Accra International Airport on a duty tour said, “when you travel overseas, when you are coming, someone gives you seven phones (mobile), when you carry all those seven phones and you arrive [in Ghana], it will amount to commercial because as an individual, you are entitled to one. So we will implore that, when you are coming home, you do not collect people’s things, if you collect them and they are beyond two…, one individual can only carry two, one for yourself and one for your wife, and beyond that it will amount to commercial because all these phones are expensive, look at iphone, samsung, the latest one, they are very expensive phones and that is where we can get our revenue.”
Meanwhile, the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) has clarified that requirement to pay duty on mobile phones brought into the country by travelers is treated on case-by-case basis.
In a press release dated September 3, the GRA said, “The Authority appreciates the concerns raised and wishes to clarify how Customs treats passenger baggage and personal effects.
It is not an automatic rule that a traveler carrying more than two mobile phones will be required to pay Customs duty.”
It explained that, “The key consideration is whether the items being carried are genuinely for the passenger’s personal use or whether, based on the circumstances, they are being imported for another person, for sale, distribution or other commercial purposes.
Customs officers therefore assess each case based on its circumstances. Factors that may be considered include the nature and quantity of the items, whether they are already in use, whether they are new and commercially packaged, the number of similar items being carried and whether the circumstances indicate an intention to sell or distribute them.”
The statement further explained that, “The reference to a number of mobile phones was intended to illustrate circumstances in which Customs officers may need to make further enquiries. The number of phones carried does not, on its own, determine whether duty is payable.
A traveler may therefore legitimately carry more than one phone for personal reasons, such as a work device or a replacement handset, without the items necessarily being treated as commercial imports.
Where, however, a passenger carries several new or similarly packaged devices, particularly for other persons, Customs may need to establish whether the items qualify as personal effects or should appropriately be treated as imports.”
