|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Claim: A Facebook post by Dunkwa TV alleges that Sam George said under a proposed National Information Technology Agency (NITA) bill, traders in places like Adum PZ (Kumasi) who sell phone cases and chargers would be required to pay GH₵1,000 as a registration fee and GH₵600 annually.
Verdict: False! There is no evidence that Sam George made this statement, and the claim misrepresents both the proposed NITA bill and existing regulatory fee structures. Official NITA fee schedules show significantly lower charges for relevant categories, and the proposed bill itself does not impose such fees.
Full Text
The Facebook claim (Archived here) has sparked concern among Ghanaians who fear potential financial burdens under new digital regulations.
According to the claim, the proposed NITA bill targets mobile accessory sellers, who would be subject to steep licensing fees under a pending legal framework.
Given the sensitivity of taxation and regulatory compliance for informal sector workers in Ghana, DUBAWA decided to fact-check the claim.
Verification
A review of public statements, media reports, and official documents reveals no record of Sam George announcing or endorsing such fees for phone accessory sellers. No credible news outlet or official government communication attributes this claim to him.
The claimant likely mentioned Sam George because he is the Minister for Communication, Digital Technology, and Innovations and has become the public face of the government’s ongoing digital-sector reforms, including the proposed NITA bill and other ICT-related legislation.
More importantly, the assertion that such charges fall “under the NITA bill” is false. The proposed NITA bill is still undergoing stakeholder consultation and has not been passed into law. This means it cannot currently impose any fees or regulatory obligations.
The National Information Technology Agency has also clarified that existing fees being discussed in the public domain are derived from already established legal instruments, particularly the Fees (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2022 (Act 1080), and its accompanying legislative instruments. These include L.I. 2481 (2023) and L.I. 2512 (2025), which outline categories of ICT service providers and their corresponding fees.
Under these existing frameworks, businesses that qualify as ICT service providers may be required to register and pay licensing fees. However, the classification system is structured and specific. It targets formal entities such as fintech companies, network providers, software developers, and hardware distributors—not informal roadside vendors.
Crucially, even within the relevant category, loosely related to mobile accessories, labelled “Miscellaneous ICT Components and Goods,” the official fee schedule is far lower than the viral post claims.
The application fee is set at GH₵30, with an annual renewal fee of GH₵60.
Other related categories, such as communications equipment, also carry modest fees compared to the figures cited in the claim.
There is no category within the current NITA regulatory framework that imposes a GH₵1,000 registration fee and a GH₵600 annual renewal fee on small-scale traders selling phone cases or chargers. Additionally, no provision explicitly targets informal market sellers, such as those at the Adum PZ market in Kumasi.
Further review of the evidence shared by the claimant shows that the viral post relies on a screenshot of a fee table labelled “Miscellaneous ICT Components and Goods,” which lists an application fee of GH₵1,000 and an annual renewal fee of GH₵600.
The claimant argues that phone cases and chargers fall within this category and that traders would therefore be subject to those charges. However, this interpretation is false for two key reasons.
First, the table itself is explicitly categorised under “IT Service Provider,” indicating that the fees apply to formally registered businesses operating within the ICT service ecosystem, not informal retail traders selling accessories in markets like Adum PZ.
Second, official fee schedules published by the National Information Technology Agency show significantly lower charges for comparable categories, including “Miscellaneous ICT components and goods,” which carry application and renewal fees far below the figures cited in the viral post.
This discrepancy suggests that the image shared by the claimant is taken out of context. Crucially, there is no provision in the current law or the proposed NITA bill that explicitly classifies small-scale phone accessory sellers as IT service providers subject to such high licensing fees.
Conclusion
The claim that Sam George said phone accessory sellers would pay GH₵1,000 to register and GH₵600 annually under a NITA bill is false. There is no evidence that George made such a statement, and the figures cited do not appear in either the proposed bill or current regulatory frameworks. Existing NITA fee schedules show significantly lower charges, and they apply primarily to formal ICT service providers, not informal traders. The viral post, therefore, distorts both the policy context and the actual cost structure.
