|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
At a time when the government is reeling from its year-on-year failure to meet its revenue target, several million cedis that ought to have been paid in taxes and revenue to the Ghana Airports Company Limited (GACL) and the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) for development have gone into private pockets.
DUBAWA has uncovered years of deliberate and well-executed schemes by some wrapping companies at Ghana’s airports, which charge exorbitant prices for luggage wrapped but fail or neglect to account for the total number of bags wrapped and pay the corresponding taxes in contravention of the Ghana Revenue Authority Act 2009 (ACT 791) as amended.
These companies line their pockets with harvests from wrapped luggage, issuing receipts that are, at best, mere pieces of paper and, at worst, inaccurate with no proper accounting details to track how much luggage has been wrapped.
As a result, the Ghana Airport Company has no records of how many luggage items have been wrapped over the last couple of years. Even more depressing is that the Ghana Revenue Authority, which collects taxes from all service providers and companies for development purposes, has informed DUBAWA that only one out of seven wrapping companies currently operating at Terminal 3 for years is fulfilling its tax obligations. “Some are not even registered at all with the GRA,” Emma Esi Abbuah, Senior Operations Officer/Revenue Officer, at the Ghana Revenue Authority, said.
Background
One thing is hard to miss at Ghana’s airport.
“Passengers and users of airport facilities are advised to demand receipts for any payments made at the airport. Airport staff who unlawfully demand payment of money from passengers and users of airport facilities will be apprehended and prosecuted in accordance with the laws of Ghana.”
That is the voice of an airport employee, recorded and played repeatedly through the loudspeakers to every corner of the airport.
But what is the use of these admonitions if the receipts issued are only to tick boxes of what should have been a key accounting procedure, but in actual fact turn out to be a fraudulent charade?
During one of our travels outside Ghana, this researcher at DUBAWA observed a curious incident in which one of the officers charged 50 cedis to wrap a medium-sized piece of luggage. Yet when the researcher demanded a receipt for the service, he was given the receipt and a change of 10 cedis after paying the 50 cedis demanded. This singular act aroused the researcher’s suspicion and triggered a comprehensive investigation into the operations of the wrapping industry at Ghana’s airports. The findings and their implications for Ghana’s revenue generation are dire.
Losses at GACL
Before we get into the details of the modus operandi of these wrapping companies, it is important to understand the viability of the aviation industry and, more importantly, the global economy of the wrapping industry, while also considering the financial position of the aviation and wrapping industries in Ghana. According to the International Airport Transport Association (IATA), global aviation transported 4.4 billion passengers and 61.4 million tonnes of cargo in 2023. The global aviation economy (induced, indirect, tourism catalytic, and direct aviation) contributed $4.1 trillion in 2023. This is forecasted to rise to $8.5 trillion by 2043. Additionally, the aviation industry supports approximately 86.5 million jobs worldwide.
In Africa, aviation supported 8.1 million jobs and contributed $75 billion to the GDP in 2023. Of the $75 billion, $12 billion was aviation direct, $42 billion was tourism catalytic, $8.3 billion was induced, and $13 billion was indirect.
But the story is different in Ghana.
Several reports and audits have indicated losses at various airports in Ghana. For instance, the Report of the Auditor General for the period ended December 31, 2023, stated that the GACL ended the years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 with losses of GH¢231.82 million, GH¢434.77 million, GH¢252.13 million, and GH¢175.60 million, respectively.
A table showing GACL losses from 2019 to 2022. Table source: Report of the Auditor General.
Even though Covid 19 dealt a heavy blow to the aviation industry, the Auditor General’s report recounts incidents of “uncollected royalties from concessionaires.” As of Dec. 2022, various customers of the GACL owed the company a total of GH¢33,804,320.51. This, among other reasons, is stated in the report as a reason for the GACL’s losses. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
In a turn of good fortune, the GACL recorded a profit of GH¢ 554.23 million by the close of Dec. 2024, according to the Report of the Auditor General.
Wrapping in deceit
Luggage and baggage wrapping are essential services at the airport. The global luggage wrapping economy is estimated at $500 million, with a projected compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7% from 2025 to 2033. Travellers wrap their luggage to secure it from tampering and theft, and to shield it from damage.
Of the over two million international passengers who use Kotoka International Airport (KIA) and the over 450,000 passengers who use the Accra-Kumasi route, it is estimated that a significant portion use the luggage wrapping section each day. But Ghana’s wrapping economy cannot be quantified in monetary terms because of the lack of transparency and fictitious activities there.
A customer caution on luggage at the KIA. Image Source: DUBAWA
DUBAWA investigations indicate there are no figures on the total number of luggage and baggage wrapped in Ghana. More shocking, the wrapping companies are not captured in any open-source financial audit reports. The GACL has confirmed that it has no comprehensive data on either luggage checked in or luggage wrapped at any of the Ghanaian Airports.
Beyond the findings of the Auditor General, DUBAWA’s walk-ins to the wrapping booths at Ghana’s Airports reveal even worse corporate governance practices. One of the fundamental questions to ask is, why will a company operating in losses for some years allow its service providers to fleece the country with reckless abandon?
A sign indicating KIA as the best airport in Africa with a 2-5 million passenger category. Image Source: DUBAWA.
Unwrapping the companies behind the wrapping deceit
The researcher visited GACL’s official website to obtain a clear idea of the number of companies listed by GACL that provide wrapping services at Ghana’s airports. DUBAWA observed that information on the Shop, dine & services session on the website is outdated. Wrap Rite is the only wrapping company listed as a wrapping service provider.
A screenshot of the Wraprite on the GACL website. Image Source: gacl.com.gh
However, visits to Ghana’s airports by DUBAWA revealed several wrapping companies competing for business, customers and travellers at the various airports. A Right to Information request made to the Airport Company shows that a total number of 12 wrapping Companies operate in three of Ghana’s airports- seven at Terminal 3 in Accra, two at Terminal two also in Accra and three at Prempeh International Airport in Kumasi.
So what is the modus operandi of these companies?
As has been stated already, these companies, described as service providers, must issue receipts for every transaction they engage in. By law, the Ghana Revenue Authority has set out the standard receipt regime.
Ghana Revenue Authority’s (GRA) Value Added Tax Regulations
According to the Ghana Revenue Authority’s Value Added Tax Regulations, 2016 (L.I 2243), an institution is taxable where it provides goods or services in Ghana.
Regulation 21 posits that a taxable person, on supply of “ taxable goods or services,” will/ shall issue to a customer a “tax invoice.”
Subregulation 2 of Regulation 21 states:
“ A tax invoice shall contain the following:
(a) the name, address and Tax Identification Number of that taxable person;
(b) the date and time of supply;
(c) The number of the invoice taken from a consecutive series;
(d) the name of the customer or business name and address and Tax Identification Number if a taxable person;
(e) a description sufficient to identify the goods or services supplied, including the quantity of the goods or the extent of the services supplied;
(f) the type of transaction by reference to the following categories: (i) sale; (ii) hire purchase, hire, lease or rental; (iii) exchange; (iv) goods and services supplied from the taxable person’s own supplies;
(g) the tax-exclusive charge for each description of goods or services supplied;
(h) The rate of the tax;
(i) the total charge on the invoice, exclusive of the tax;
(j) The rate of any discount;
(k) the total tax charged; and
(l) The total charge inclusive of the tax
Regulation on Sales Receipt
Regulation 22 addresses sales receipts and related matters. Subregulation 1 states that a taxpayer “may” apply for approval to use a sales receipt pursuant to subsection (3) of section 41 of the Act. The GRA commissioner-general is the only one authorised to issue sales receipts.
The commissioner-general authorises a taxpayer to issue a sales receipt where:
(a) The taxpayer makes low-value, high-volume supplies;
(b) Supplies are paid for in cash; and
(c) The taxable person uses an electronic device approved by the Commissioner-General for the issue of the sales receipt.
A sales receipt is mandated to include the following “minimum” information:
- The name and full address of the supplier;
- The Tax Identification Number;
- The serial number of the receipt;
- Either the gross amount of the transaction, including the tax, or the amount of the transaction and the tax;
- The date of the transaction.
All this gives the GRA the information it needs to track business volume by entity to charge or collect the corresponding development taxes.
Having looked at what the Airport Company and the GRA have said regarding the issuance of receipts and what should be included in a standard receipt, DUBAWA proceeded to the various airports to unravel the modus operandi of the wrapping companies.
Terminal 3 ( KIA)
Kotoka International Airport (KIA) is one of Ghana’s international airports. In 2019, the Airport Council International (AIC) ranked it the best in West Africa. Terminal 3 serves as the main, if not only, Terminal for international departures at the KIA. The terminal was opened to traffic in Sep. 2018.
The research period lasted from June to Dec. 2025. Throughout the research period, the researcher visited Terminal 3 on various occasions. On June 16, 2025, at approximately 5:00 p.m., the researcher visited Terminal 3. At the luggage wrapping section, the researcher observed six different wrapping companies/enterprises: K-Logs Enterprise, Wrap Rite Enterprise, Fresh Cut Wrap, Titan Empire Limited, AMD Limited, and Compass Royal Limited.
For the visit on June 16, the researcher wrapped three luggage at a tune of GH¢210 at the K-Logs counter. A sales receipt was issued on request. Although a receipt was issued, a careful review of the sales receipt revealed an interesting omission: the Tax Identification Number (TIN) was missing from the receipt details. Again, the receipt did not include a key component, which is the amount of the tax that ought to have been indicated on the receipt.
A copy of the receipt issued by K-LOGS Enterprise. Image source: DUBAWA
On a follow-up visit on Sep. 30, 2025, the same wrapping company, K-LOGS Enterprise, issued a receipt with missing information (TIN) and tax component after the services were provided.
A copy of the receipt issued by K-LOGS Enterprise on Sep. 30, 2025. Image Source: DUBAWA.
Subsequent visits to Terminal 3 and review of receipts issued at the wrapping section indicate continuous omission of key details contrary to the GRA’s regulations. Again, receipts issued by WrapRite Enterprise did not include the TIN. However, the receipt from Wraprite included the 21.9% tax component, a departure from the receipts from other companies.
A collage of receipts issued by WrapRite Enterprise on Oct. 13, 2025. Image Source: DUBAWA
Numerous other visits indicated a similar practice; some, if not all, the wrapping companies at the KIA issued receipts with a key detail omitted: the TIN of these companies and the tax components.
A collage of receipts from Compass Royal on different days. Image Source: DUBAWA.
A collage of receipts from AMD Wrapping on different dates. Image Source: DUBAWA.
Prempeh I International Airport, Kumasi
The researcher travelled to ascertain the situation in Kumasi. On June 14, 2025, a visit to the new Prempeh I International Airport Terminal revealed a small luggage wrapping station located immediately to the left of the main departure entrance, opposite the washrooms.
The researcher discovered there were three wrapping companies there. This includes REOKUM Enterprise, AKABELS Enterprise and Gobs and Sons Enterprises. Upon enquiry, the attendants reiterated that receipts are issued for every service rendered.
However, on another visit on Sep. 24, 2025, after wrapping a bag, the researcher was issued a receipt by REOKUM, which raised suspicions. Unlike the receipts issued at Terminal 3, this receipt omitted several details contrary to GRA’s Regulation 22. The receipt was issued without REOKUM TIN, name, or address.
A copy of the receipt issued by REUKOM at the Prempeh I International Airport, Kumasi. Image Source: DUBAWA
On another visit, the researcher was served by the same wrapping company. A much-improved receipt was issued. However, peculiar details were still omitted.
A receipt issued by REOKUM on Nov. 4, 2025. Image Source: DUBAWA
In a follow-up visit to the same Prempeh I terminal on Oct. 22, 2025, the researcher’s bag was wrapped by another luggage wrapping company, AKABELS Enterprise. Unsurprisingly, several details were omitted from the receipt. The receipt did not have the AKABELS’ TIN.
A copy of the receipt issued by AKABELS Enterprise. Image source: DUBAWA
Key Findings
- Pricing Irregularities
During the investigation period, DUBAWA observed incidents of price irregularities. There is no official pricing mechanism in place during the wrapping sessions. Wrapping companies charged the exact fees for both medium and large luggage. Except for hand luggage, the companies charged ¢40 or ¢50 for both medium and large luggage, depending on the day of travel.
On Sep. 30, 2025, for example, the researcher wrapped a medium and small bag; however, the researcher was charged prices for large and medium luggage at Terminal 3.
A picture of small and medium-sized luggage wrapped at Terminal 3. Image Source: DUBAWA
At some point, the charges quoted did not corroborate the luggage wrapped. At the Prempeh I in Kumasi, the researcher was charged 50.00gh for a medium bag on two occasions, without any indication of the charges for different luggage sizes.
This raises the question of whether GACL has a standardised, regulated policy for baggage wrapping pricing at the airport.
- Omission of details on receipts
Contrary to Regulation 22 of the GRA’s VAT regulations, 2016, which states that a sales receipt should have “minimum” information, including the TIN. All the receipts issued during the research period lacked a TIN. In some instances, the wrapping agents issued manual receipts, while in other cases, they used automated systems. One thing is clear: in both instances, the TIN was missing.
Per the GRA’s regulations, these receipts are “not standardised”. Various wrapping companies have issued inaccurate and unauthorised receipts during the investigation.
- Receipts on demand
On the various visits, one thing was clear: the wrapping companies only issued receipts on demand, contrary to the law and procedures.. In multiple cases, travellers were busy or in a rush and did not demand a receipt.
- Unavailability of data on luggage
As a regulator, the lack of quantifiable data on luggage passing through our airports leaves gaps that can be exploited by these wrapping companies. In the absence of this data, it is unclear how the GACL calculates the quantum of work done and the revenue that needs to be remitted to the GRA. Interestingly, the GACL
Response from GACL
DUBAWA submitted an RTI in pursuance of Article 21 (1) (f) of the Constitution of Ghana and Right to Information Act 2019 (Act 989) to Ghana Airport Company Limited, requesting information on luggage wrapping services and companies at the Kotoka and Prempeh I International Airports. The GACL ignored or refused to provide the data until DUBAWA escalated the matter to the Right to Information Commission for redress. The Commission instructed the Airport Company to release the data to DUBAWA in five days or face sanctions. The Airport Company complied amidst conflicting responses to some of the questions.
Among other things, DUBAWA wanted to know:
- The total number and names of luggage wrapping companies at both airports.
- Annual data on the total number of luggage checked in and wrapped from 2015 to date.
- Annual data on royalties paid by the various wrapping companies from 2015 to date.
- The pricing mechanism for wrapping the various sizes of luggage.
Even though the GACL admitted to having 12 wrapping companies, the details of the annual royalties paid to the company by these wrapping companies were 14.
Again, even though the GACL claimed one of the wrapping companies, Wraprite, started operations in October 2018, the GACL somehow collected royalties from Wraprite in 2016 and 2017, raising questions about the accuracy of the data provided.
Shockingly, the GACL said the “annual data on the total number of luggage wrapped at the country’s airports from 2015 to date were not available. The wrapping companies do not have complete records.”
On the pricing regime, the GACL said the pricing is based on luggage size, typically categorised as “small, medium, large, and oversized/ irregular items.” However, the GACL has no approved amount for the various luggage sizes. As a result, passengers are left at the mercy of whichever price/ charge the wrapping companies assign to the various sizes.
Given the absence of data on the number of luggage wrapped and the quantum of work done by these wrapping companies, it is unclear how the GACL calculates the royalties paid by them and the amount in taxes to be paid to the GRA.
In its response to DUBAWA’s RTI, the Airport Company indicated that these wrapping companies pay royalties to it.
According to the GACL, it received royalties of GH₵682,549.66, GH₵975,089.02, GH₵1,215,758.02, and GH₵1,456,570.42 from these wrapping companies in 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, respectively. The royalties notwithstanding, the companies still needed to file their taxes to the GRA, something they have failed to do. One could only imagine what good fortune the GACL and GRA would achieve if the activities in all-day busy sections of luggage wrapping at the airports were properly monitored.
A table of royalties paid by various wrapping companies. Image Source: GACL
The Bombshell from GRA
Speaking to DUBAWA Emma Esi Abbuah, Senior Operations Officer/Revenue Officer, said Freshcut Wrap is the only company “up to date with its tax obligations.” She added that the remaining six companies they found operating at the T3 airport had not paid a dime in taxes to the GRA. “Some of them are not even registered at all in our system,” she added.
On receipt standardisation, the Senior Operations Officer at the GRA said receipts are the “only evidence” that validates transactions. As key evidence of sales or services rendered, receipts must show the date, the TIN, and the gross amount, as well as the tax and levies.
She reiterated the importance of TIN in monitoring transactions and working back gross amounts. This helps maintain accountability and prevent undeclared income by individuals and entities.
“You cannot issue a receipt from the system without our approval. As part of the approval process, we make sure that it has a TIN column. The TIN must be there,” she said.
Omitting the TIN from a sales receipt renders it “inaccurate or non-standardised.”
She said the GRA will soon take action against these companies.
Response from the Heads of wrapping companies.
DUBAWA’s attempt to contact the heads of the wrapping companies proved futile. Various phone contacts obtained from the company’s call numbers, gathered from receipts during the investigation, yielded no response.
Again, DUBAWA conducted several Google searches to find information on the locations of the various wrapping companies’ offices; the searches yielded no results.
Attempts to get the workers of the companies at the Airports to speak about issues also proved futile.
Conclusion
The country has lost revenue in millions of cedis from multiple sources at the airports through the activities of these wrapping companies. At a time when the Airport company juggles between making losses and profit, allowing these companies to harvest proceeds from the industry without paying a dime to the state and issuing inaccurate receipts to mask their activities should be a worrying spectacle to all well-meaning citizens.
Click here to watch a short documentary on Wrapped in deceit.
Editing Credit
Editor : Nathan Gadugah
Copy Editor: Simbiat Bakare
