The Ghana Institute of Freight Forwarders (GIFF) has issued a stark warning to government and maritime regulators, demanding immediate and punitive enforcement of the GH¢720 cap on the Container Administrative Charge (CAC), as several shipping lines continue to flout the directive with apparent impunity.
Speaking exclusively to Citi Business News, GIFF General Secretary Paul Kobina Mensah expressed frustration that despite multiple written directives from the Ministry of Transport and the Ghana Shippers’ Authority (GSA), some international shipping lines persist in levying charges far above the statutory ceiling—a practice he says is eroding trust in regulatory oversight and inflating logistics costs for importers and exporters alike.
“It is unfortunate, and we seem to be helpless,” Mensah said, his tone reflecting a growing sense of exasperation among freight forwarders. “It’s a directive and must be enforced. When the directive goes out and the relevant agencies or companies are not adhering to that directive, I think there should be a mechanism to make them respect the directive and act accordingly.”
What Is the Container Administrative Charge?
The CAC is a fee imposed by shipping lines on importers and exporters for the administrative handling of containers—covering documentation, customs clearance coordination, and port interface services. For years, the charge varied widely among operators, with some imposing fees exceeding GH¢1,200 per container, creating confusion and unpredictability for freight forwarders who must quote final costs to their clients.
In response to persistent complaints from the private sector, the Ghana Shippers’ Authority—the statutory body responsible for regulating shipping and port charges—issued a directive in late 2025 capping the CAC at GH¢720 per container. The move was hailed as a pro-business intervention designed to reduce the cost of clearing goods through Ghana’s ports, which are among the most expensive in West Africa.
Yet, more than eight months later, compliance remains spotty.
A Pattern of Disregard
Mensah noted that the Institute has documented multiple cases where shipping lines continue to charge between GH¢900 and GH¢1,100 per container, ostensibly citing “operational adjustments” or “currency fluctuations” as justification. He argued that such excuses are unacceptable, as the cap was deliberately set to absorb reasonable cost variations.
“In this case, we seem to only hear letters being written to them,” Mensah said. “Letters are written to them all right. They still don’t care.”
The GIFF General Secretary emphasized that mere correspondence from regulators is insufficient. He called for a structured enforcement framework that includes:
· Regular audits of shipping line billing systems to verify compliance.
· Fines or penalties for each non-compliant transaction, tied to a fixed percentage of the excess charge.
· Publication of non-compliant operators to publicly name and shame violators.
· Suspension of operating licenses for repeat offenders.
“The absence of consequences has created a culture of impunity,” Mensah warned. “If a shipping line knows that the worst that will happen is receiving another letter, they will continue to charge what they want.”
Broader Implications for Trade and Competitiveness
The issue extends far beyond a single fee. Ghana’s ports are critical gateways for over 90 percent of the country’s international trade. Any increase in port costs directly translates into higher consumer prices, reduced margins for importers, and diminished competitiveness for Ghanaian exporters trying to penetrate regional and global markets.
According to the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index, Ghana’s port efficiency has slipped in recent years, with high ancillary fees cited as a major deterrent. The GIFF argues that the CAC cap was precisely the kind of reform needed to reverse that trend—but only if it is enforced.
“Predictable and enforceable charges are critical to controlling operating costs and maintaining a competitive trading environment,” Mensah stressed. “When one component of the logistics chain becomes unpredictable, it ripples through the entire system—from freight forwarders to wholesalers to the final consumer.”
Regulatory Response Questioned
The Ghana Shippers’ Authority has not issued a formal public response to GIFF’s latest complaints. However, sources within the Authority told Citi Business News that enforcement has been hampered by limited inspectorate capacity and the fact that many shipping lines operate through local agents, making direct sanctioning legally complex.
Industry insiders also point to a broader tension: shipping lines are largely foreign-owned and operate under international maritime conventions, which can complicate the application of local price controls. Nonetheless, GIFF maintains that Ghanaian law applies to all operators within its territorial jurisdiction, and that the Authority possesses adequate powers under the Ghana Shippers’ Authority Act, 2005 (Act 686) to impose sanctions.
A Growing List of Grievances
The latest complaint adds to a swelling catalogue of concerns from Ghana’s freight and logistics community. Earlier this year, the same Institute raised alarms over arbitrary demurrage and detention charges, which they argued were being levied without clear justification. Port service charges, terminal handling fees, and customs inspection levies have also come under scrutiny.
Collectively, these cost pressures have made clearing a 20-foot container through Tema or Takoradi significantly more expensive than through competing ports in Cotonou, Lomé, or Abidjan. Some importers have begun diverting cargo to neighbouring ports, costing Ghana valuable transit revenue and undermining the government’s own ports modernisation investments.
Call for Ministerial Intervention
The GIFF has now escalated its appeal beyond the Shippers’ Authority, calling on the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Trade and Industry to personally intervene. The Institute is requesting a high-level stakeholder meeting where shipping lines would be required to demonstrate compliance or face immediate regulatory action.
“We are not asking for special favours,” Mensah concluded. “We are asking that the rules we all agreed to are respected. If the cap is not working for the shipping lines, let them go through the proper process to amend it. But until that happens, every shipping line must comply—and those who refuse must face consequences.”
Analyst’s Take
Maritime economist Dr. Kwame Anane-Asare, a lecturer at the University of Ghana’s Business School, described the standoff as a “litmus test for regulatory credibility.”
“Ghana has a habit of issuing directives with great fanfare but then failing to back them with enforcement teeth,” he said. “The CAC cap is a textbook case. If the Shippers’ Authority cannot compel compliance on a simple fee cap, how can it be trusted to regulate more complex issues like demurrage, safety standards, or environmental compliance?”
He added that the issue also raises questions about the government’s broader commitment to reducing the cost of doing business—a key pillar of its economic recovery strategy. “Every extra cedi a shipping line extracts without justification is a cedi that could have gone into expanding a business, hiring a worker, or lowering prices for a consumer. This is not a minor grievance; it is a drag on the entire economy.”
What Next?
As of press time, neither the Ministry of Transport nor the Ghana Shippers’ Authority had responded to GIFF’s latest demands. However, freight forwarders say they will not relent. Mensah indicated that the Institute is preparing to escalate the matter to Parliament’s Committee on Trade, Industry, and Tourism if no action is taken within the next two weeks.
For now, Ghana’s freight forwarders remain caught in the middle—bound to clients by contract, yet powerless to control the fees that shipping lines unilaterally impose. Their plea is simple: enforce the law, or change the law. But do not leave us in legal limbo.
The GH¢720 cap remains in effect as per the Shippers’ Authority directive, but industry stakeholders estimate that non-compliance affects approximately 40 percent of all container transactions at Tema Port, costing importers and freight forwarders millions of cedis annually in excess charges.
