A legal practitioner, Jonathan A. Alua, has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to challenge the Ghana Revenue Authority’s (GRA) power to determine passenger baggage exemptions from customs duties and taxes.

Mr Alua has sued the Attorney-General and the Commissioner-General of the GRA over Regulation 18(2)(b) of the Exemptions Regulations, 2025 (L.I. 2514), which he contends is inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution.

The plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to declare the provision unconstitutional, arguing that it effectively empowers the GRA Commissioner-General to waive or vary taxes without obtaining prior approval from Parliament.

According to Mr Alua, Article 174(2) of the Constitution requires any waiver or variation of a tax in favour of any person or authority to be approved beforehand through a resolution of Parliament.

He argues that the authority granted under Regulation 18(2)(b) to determine the quantity of passenger baggage that qualifies for exemption from customs duties and taxes amounts to an exercise of that constitutional power.

The lawyer is therefore seeking a declaration that the regulation is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the Commissioner-General or officers of the Customs Division to approve or reject baggage exemptions on a case-by-case basis without prior parliamentary approval.

He is also asking the Court to restrain the GRA from exercising the disputed power until the requirements of Article 174(2) have been satisfied, or Parliament has passed a resolution under Article 174(3) exempting the exercise of the power from that requirement.

Mr Alua has further asked the Supreme Court to issue any additional orders it considers necessary to give effect to the declarations being sought.

The plaintiff is also seeking costs.
The Attorney-General and the GRA are required to file their respective statements of case within 14 days after being served with the plaintiff’s statement of case.