By Issah Olegor
A growing controversy surrounding a GH¢17,710,760 million petroleum lifting arrangement at the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) has raised fresh questions about decision-making at the country’s tax and customs administration, as internal memoranda and approval letters appear to contradict earlier risk assessments on a beneficiary oil marketing company.
At the centre of the storm an oil marketing company (OMC) that sought approval to operate under a non-bonded or self-recognizance regime, a concession that allows companies to lift petroleum products without providing traditional financial bonds upfront.
The arrangement, if abused, exposes the state to significant revenue risks, with little room to recoup the loss revenue.
Movement for Truth and Accountability (MFTA), a civil society group that has previously triggered major probes into procurement and revenue-related scandals at the GRA is lacing its boots to push for a thorough investigations into the scandal at the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice.
A petition, signed by the group’s Convener, Joseph Bediako, accuses senior officials of the GRA particularly the Commissioner General, Anthony Kwasi Sarpong of flouting their own operational guidelines in granting financial concessions to unqualified firms.
The Initial Request
In a letter dated 20 November 2024 and addressed to the Commissioner of the Customs Division of the GRA at the time, the oil company formally applied for non-bonded status, citing what it described as four years of operations in the oil sector and a strong payment record.
The company argued that rising bond costs were placing strain on its operations and limiting its ability to expand.
The company requested approval to lift petroleum products up to a value of GH¢55 million, proposing to settle payments within 60 days after lifting.
The letter, signed by the company’s Chief Executive Officer, stressed ethical conduct, financial discipline and transparency as grounds for the request.
Customs Assessment Raises Red Flags
However, an internal Customs Division Policy and Programmes memorandum dated 18 December 2024 painted a markedly different picture of the company’s operational history.
According to the report, the oil company had only been operating as an OMC since the first quarter of 2022, lifting petroleum products strictly on a cash-and-carry basis.
Payment records attached to the memo showed irregular activity over multiple years.
The assessment revealed that the company made no payments at all for the third and fourth quarters of 2022, the first and second quarters of 2023, and from the first to third quarters of 2024.
For the whole of 2024, the company reportedly made only one cash-and-carry payment of GH¢46,980, and that was in the last quarter of the year.
Based on these findings, Customs officials concluded that the company posed a risk to revenue and recommended that it should continue operating strictly under cash-and-carry terms, rather than being granted non-bonded status.
While acknowledging that Section 108(c) of the Customs Act, 2015 (Act 891) allows for self-recognizance arrangements, the memo urged caution given the company’s payment history.
A Sudden Shift
Despite these reservations, the situation took a dramatic turn months later. In a letter issued to the company and signed by Ernest Annan-Prah (PhD), Assistant Commissioner for Petroleum (Downstream), the GRA informed the company that its application to operate as a non-bonded OMC had been approved.
The approval referenced a subsequent application dated 20 March 2025, effectively overturning earlier concerns raised within the Customs Division.
The letter did not publicly outline the conditions attached to the approval or explain how previous risk concerns had been resolved.
Risk Management Unit Weighs In
Further internal documents show that the Risk Management Unit (RMU) of the GRA conducted a separate review, culminating in a memorandum dated 7 May 2025 addressed to the Commissioner-General, Anthony Kwasi Sarpong.
The RMU review covered the company’s petroleum transactions and overall tax compliance. It concluded that the company had fulfilled the mandatory six-month cash-and-carry requirement and, as of 7 May 2025, had no outstanding domestic tax liabilities.
The RMU report also cited cumulative tax-related payments linked to petroleum lifting between 2022 and 2025, amounting to millions of cedis, and recommended the application for consideration.
Crucially, the RMU review examined a proposed non-bonded threshold of GH¢100 million, far exceeding the GH¢55 million initially requested.
The GH¢17.7m Question
The controversy now centres on reports that the oil company has defaulted on payments estimated at about GH¢17,710,760 million, raising fears that the non-bonded approval may have exposed the state to avoidable losses.
Critics argue that the approval process appears inconsistent, with earlier warnings overridden without transparent public justification.
Civil society actors and observers are questioning who authorized the deal, what risk safeguards were enforced, and why conflicting internal assessments did not halt or delay approval until payment patterns stabilized.
A Familiar Pattern?
The “sweet oil deal,” as critics have labelled it, comes against a backdrop of previous controversies at the GRA involving procurement, tax concessions and discretionary approvals.
Each episode has intensified calls for stronger internal controls and greater transparency in how high-risk concessions are granted.
As pressure mounts, attention is now focused on the GRA’s leadership and oversight structures, with demands for clarity on how a company once deemed risky was later cleared for a lucrative non-bonded petroleum arrangement.
Whether the GH¢17,710,760 million exposure will be recovered — and who will be held accountable — remains an open and pressing question.
