Lawyer and journalist Samson Lardy Anyenini has cautioned drone owners against assuming that ownership gives them an unrestricted right to operate the devices anywhere in Ghana.

His comments follow the reported arrest of three persons for allegedly flying drones over the headquarters of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).

Mr Anyenini, host of Joy News' Newsfile and The Law, said the incident was a useful reminder that the operation of drones, legally known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), is regulated under Ghanaian law.

In a Facebook post under his The Law 101 series, he said the principal legal framework includes the Ghana Civil Aviation Act, 2024 (Act 1120), and the Ghana Civil Aviation (RPAS) Directives, 2018, Part 28.

According to him, the regulatory requirements apply even before a drone takes off.

He said prior approval from the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) was required to import, export, sell or operate a drone or its parts.

He added that drones must be registered, but registration by itself did not constitute permission to fly.

“Part 28.7 is emphatic: ‘No person shall fly an RPAS without a Permit issued by the Authority,’” he said.

Mr Anyenini said there were also additional requirements governing commercial drone operations, night flights, flights above 400 feet, operations around airports and helipads, and flights within restricted, prohibited, danger and Special Use Areas.

He said breaches of the regulations could attract sanctions, depending on the particular violation and the status of the operator.

According to him, penalties applicable to individuals could range from 1,000 to 12,000 penalty units, equivalent to GH¢12,000 to GH¢144,000, based on a penalty unit of GH¢12.

He, however, drew attention to what he described as a more serious offence under Section 40 of Act 1120.

The provision, he said, carried a penalty of between 50,000 and 200,000 penalty units, equivalent to GH¢600,000 to GH¢2.4 million, or imprisonment for between five and 30 years, or both, for violating a prohibition against flying over specified airspace.

Mr Anyenini cautioned, however, that the Section 40 punishment could not automatically be invoked merely because the location was a sensitive State installation.

He said the particular airspace must first have been formally prohibited under Section 40 before the more severe sanction could properly apply.

Against that background, he said the legal questions arising from the EOCO incident went beyond why the individuals were flying drones over the facility.

He said it would be necessary to establish whether the drones were lawfully acquired or imported, whether they had been registered, whether the operators had permits to fly them, and whether any additional authorisation was required for the particular airspace.

He also questioned whether the airspace over EOCO was formally designated as prohibited or restricted under the law.

“The drone may be yours. The airspace is not,” Mr Anyenini said.