By Daniel Bampoe
Pressure is mounting on the Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), Anthony Kwasi Sarpong, following a series of allegations involving revenue leakages, the handling of overstayed cargo at the Tema Port and the granting of self-recognition status to some Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), as documents show that the Right to Information (RTI) Commission has opened proceedings over the Authority’s alleged failure to provide information requested on some of the matters.
The controversy has triggered calls from the Movement for Truth and Accountability and other concerned stakeholders for President John Dramani Mahama and the Chief of Staff to demand greater accountability over the management of state revenue.
At the centre of one aspect of the controversy are allegations surrounding the handling of imported cargo at the country’s ports.
Sources familiar with port operations allege that some containers manifested as in-transit cargo were prevented from going through the appropriate transfer and inspection processes, eventually creating conditions under which some could be treated as overstayed cargo and disposed of through auction.
The sources claim that under established procedures, affected consignments requiring further processing are transferred to designated terminals for inspection, valuation and other customs processes.
However, allegations being circulated by critics of the GRA administration suggest that some transfers were deliberately frustrated, potentially exposing the state to revenue losses.
There are further allegations that questionable documentation, including bills of lading, may have been used in attempts to establish ownership over some consignments before their disposal.
It is also alleged that some consignments were subsequently auctioned at values significantly below their potential tax liabilities, resulting in possible losses to the state.
These claims have not been independently established.
Tema Port Officials Dragged Into Controversy
The allegations have also touched officials operating at the Tema Port.
One official identified by the accusers as the Tema Sector Commander has been accused of allegedly exerting pressure on subordinate officers in connection with some auction processes.
The accusers have further questioned reports concerning efforts to keep him at the port beyond an anticipated retirement date of August 3, 2026, suggesting that such a move could be connected to the continuing administration of customs operations.
The controversy comes at a time when the management of uncleared and confiscated cargo at Tema Port has attracted increased public attention, with campaigners demanding greater transparency over how goods become eligible for auction, how beneficiaries are selected and how much revenue ultimately reaches the state.
OMC Debt Opens Another Front
Beyond the ports, another potentially significant controversy has emerged over tax liabilities associated with some Oil Marketing Companies.
Documents attributed to the RTI Commission show that the Movement for Truth and Accountability, represented by its convener Joseph Bediako, sought information from the GRA concerning the tax liabilities of six OMCs during the 2025 fiscal year. The outstanding tax liabilities is in the region of GH¢163, 114,200.
The companies identified in the request included AI Energy and Petroleum Limited, LISS Petroleum Limited, MUNA Energy Limited, Santol Energy Limited, SAC Energy Limited Company and YASS Petroleum Company Limited.
Figures reproduced in the RTI correspondence indicate alleged outstanding liabilities including GH¢971,550 for AI Energy and Petroleum Limited, GH¢934,740 for LISS Petroleum Limited, GH¢17,710,760 for MUNA Energy Limited, GH¢83,837,550 for Santol Energy Limited, GH¢1,583,640 for SAC Energy Limited Company and GH¢58,075,960 for YASS Petroleum Company Limited.
According to the information reproduced in the RTI document, no recoveries were recorded against the listed amounts at the time covered by the request.
The figures, if confirmed as outstanding tax liabilities, would raise questions about how such debts accumulated and what recovery measures were being pursued by the revenue authority.
Those were precisely among the questions the Movement for Truth and Accountability wanted answered.
RTI Commission Steps In
The dispute subsequently reached the Right to Information Commission.
In correspondence dated June 16, 2026, the Commission said it had received an Application for Review on June 1 from the Movement for Truth and Accountability concerning what the organisation described as the GRA’s failure or refusal to provide the requested information.
Invoking its powers under the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), the Commission demanded an explanation from the GRA regarding the alleged failure to respond.
It also directed the Authority to provide the information sought by the applicant to enable the Commission to conduct its review and determine the matter.
The Commission specifically referenced Section 43(2)(b) of Act 989 concerning its investigative authority and Section 70, which requires public institutions and other relevant bodies to provide assistance reasonably required during an investigation.
The correspondence therefore establishes that the RTI Commission was examining the alleged failure to provide information; it does not constitute a finding that the underlying allegations against the GRA or the affected companies are true.
Questions Over ‘Self-Recognition’ Status
A separate RTI proceeding has also raised questions about what the applicant described as “Self-Recognition Status” granted to six petroleum companies.
The companies identified in that application were La Clem Ghana Limited, SAC Energy Limited, Smart and Partners Limited, Maxx Energy Limited, Muna Energy Limited and Gamma Petroleum and Energy.
The group requested information is on the basis upon which the companies were granted the status and whether the applicable guidelines and procedures had been followed.
According to the RTI Commission’s June 16 correspondence, the original request had been submitted to the Commissioner-General on May 7, 2026.
After the applicant alleged that no response had been received, it petitioned the RTI Commission for review.
The Commission subsequently directed the GRA to explain the alleged failure to respond and furnish the requested information within seven days of receiving its letter.
