BY ISSAH OLEGOR
A seemingly routine decision by cement manufacturers to recover rising costs at the Tema Port has triggered a major competition controversy, with policy think tank CUTS International warning that the industry’s agreement on a uniform GH¢12 per bag clinker demurrage surcharge could raise serious cartel concerns.
The warning follows an emergency meeting reportedly held by the Chamber of Cement Manufacturers, Ghana (COCMAG) on August 28, 2026, at which cement producers agreed on the surcharge.
According to information released by COCMAG, the charge consists of GH¢10 before tax and GH¢2 in taxes and levies, and is expected to remain in effect until December 31, 2026, subject to monthly monitoring and a review in January 2027.
CUTS International, however, says the central issue is not whether cement manufacturers are entitled to recover additional costs. Rather, it is whether competing companies should collectively determine the amount consumers pay to recover those costs.
Appiah Kusi Adomako, Director of the West Africa Regional Centre of CUTS International, said businesses have a legitimate right to recover genuine expenses and maintain financial sustainability, but argued that competitors agreeing on an identical component of their prices could undermine the principles of competition.
“What raises a red flag is when firms that are supposed to compete meet and collectively determine a common surcharge to be paid by consumers,” Adomako said.
The controversy comes against the backdrop of mounting congestion at the Tema Port, which has significantly increased the cost of importing clinker, a critical raw material used in cement production.
COCMAG has reportedly indicated that the average waiting period for vessels at the port increased dramatically from about seven days in January 2026 to between 30 and more than 40 days by August.
The prolonged delays have resulted in substantial demurrage liabilities for cement manufacturers. Industry estimates cited by CUTS put the total demurrage bill incurred by cement producers at approximately US$45 million to US$50 million during the first eight months of 2026.
CUTS does not dispute the seriousness of the problem.
The think tank acknowledges that manufacturers cannot be expected to absorb indefinitely the financial consequences of prolonged vessel delays, port congestion and other operational bottlenecks.
The concern, it says, lies in the mechanism through which the industry intends to transfer those additional costs to consumers.
According to CUTS, the fact that manufacturers face the same broad problem does not necessarily mean that every producer has incurred the same additional cost.
Cement companies may operate under different shipping arrangements and contracts, import different quantities of clinker, use different vessels, maintain varying levels of inventory and have different financing and operational costs.
Their exposure to demurrage could therefore vary considerably, it said.
One manufacturer might calculate that it needs to recover GH¢12 per bag, while another could determine that GH¢8 is sufficient.
A more efficient producer could even choose to absorb some of its additional costs in an effort to protect its market share.
CUTS has pointed to airline industry to illustrate how companies facing similar cost pressures can respond differently without necessarily coordinating their charges.
The organisation cited fare information for the Accra-Kumasi route for September 15, 2026, showing different fuel surcharges imposed by two airlines.
According to CUTS, Africa World Airlines applies a GH¢220 fuel surcharge, while PassionAir applies GH¢75. A common industry challenge, it argues, does not necessarily require a common industry price.
Trade association’s role under scrutiny
The controversy has also placed the role of COCMAG under renewed scrutiny. According to the think tank, an industry association could potentially cross that line if competing members discuss, recommend or agree on prices, surcharges or other commercially sensitive information that should ordinarily be determined independently by each company.
CUTS is therefore demanding clarification from COCMAG on the precise nature of the August 28 decision. The organisation wants to know whether the GH¢12 figure constitutes a collective decision, a recommendation or merely an industry reference point, and whether individual cement manufacturers remain free to impose a lower surcharge, a higher surcharge or no surcharge at all.
Monthly review could create another competition risk
CUTS has also raised concerns about the proposed monthly monitoring mechanism and the planned review in January 2027.
CUTS argues that the absence of a comprehensive domestic competition law makes developments involving potentially coordinated pricing particularly concerning.
The organisation is therefore calling for renewed urgency in passing Competition and Fair Trade Practices legislation and establishing an effective national competition authority capable of investigating and addressing anti-competitive practices.
