A farmer from Techiman in the Bono East region, Mariam Alhassan, has initiated a constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn what she describes as an exclusionary regulatory regime governing industrial cannabis cultivation.
The suit, filed on Friday, February 27, invokes the original jurisdiction of the apex court and names the Ministry for the Interior, the Narcotics Control Commission, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, and the Attorney-General as defendants.
Madam Alhassan argues that the current licensing framework effectively shuts out ordinary Ghanaian farmers from participating in what is projected to be a multi-billion-dollar industry.
In the statement of claim, the plaintiff said the state introduced steep and cumulative licence fees without adequately reflecting stakeholder consultations.
“The Defendants acted unfairly and in breach of legitimate expectation by imposing materially higher fees without reasonable accommodation of the consultative process,” the statement of claim asserts.
She contends that proposals for a tiered structure that would allow small- and medium-scale operators to enter the market were disregarded.
At the centre of the case is the claim that the licensing structure imposes “materially higher, unscaled, and cumulative fees,” with some charges reportedly reaching up to 45,000 dollars per hectare, alongside annual levies and percentage-based payments.
The plaintiff argues that such costs are prohibitive for smallholder farmers and violate Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees administrative justice and fair treatment.
Madam Alhassan is asking the court to declare that the industrial hemp framework under Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019), as amended, and L.I. 2475, is inconsistent with constitutional provisions including Articles 17, 23, 36, and 296.
She argues that the structure’s “irrational design, exclusionary economic effect, and disproportionate exercise of administrative discretion” undermine equal participation in economic life.
She further maintains that the high licence fees, recurring levies and percentage charges amount in effect to taxation, contrary to Article 174 of the Constitution, which vests taxing authority exclusively in Parliament.
The suit also challenges requirements such as narcotics-style transport permits and armed security escorts for industrial hemp containing no more than 0.3 percent THC, describing them as arbitrary and lacking rational justification.
Among the reliefs sought are declarations striking down the current fee regime, orders compelling regulators to redesign the framework to incorporate tiered and risk-based charges, removal of dollar-denominated structures that expose farmers to exchange-rate volatility, and the suspension of the contested provisions pending constitutional compliance.
She noted that imported hemp-based products such as cosmetics and body care items containing no more than 0.3 percent THC, typically enter Ghana through standard commercial channels as ordinary consumer goods.
Yet, she argues, domestic cultivation of the same non-psychoactive material is regulated under a narcotics administration regime, complete with multiple licensing layers, security vetting, transport authorisations and recurring levies.
The suit poses a pointed constitutional question: “If imported hemp goods circulate normally, can domestic production of the same non-narcotic material rationally be treated as a high-risk narcotics activity?”
According to the plaintiff, this disparity creates economic exclusion under Article 17, irrational administrative action under Articles 23 and 296, potential frustration of participatory economic goals under Article 36, and what she characterises as de facto taxation through licensing structures.
She argues that while consumers face minimal restrictions in accessing hemp-based finished goods, Ghanaian producers encounter extensive barriers at every stage of the value chain, from cultivation and processing to storage, transport and export.
In her view, that imbalance forms the constitutional tension now before the Supreme Court, with implications not only for cannabis regulation but for broader questions of administrative justice, economic inclusion and the rule of law.
ALSO READ:
