IMANI Africa has questioned the Ghana Standards Authority’s decision to restrict the importation of used vehicles older than 15 years, arguing that vehicle safety should be determined primarily by roadworthiness rather than age.

The policy, which is expected to take effect from October 1 under the GS 4510:2022 conformity regime, has prompted a wider debate over whether age alone should be enough to prevent a vehicle from entering Ghana.

IMANI said Ghana had every right to prevent dangerous and defective vehicles from entering the country and supported efforts to sanitise the used vehicle market.

However, it said the key issue was whether “age should outweigh roadworthiness” when determining which vehicles could be imported.

“Are we regulating danger or regulating birthdays?” IMANI Associate Kay Codjoe asked in an article on Thursday, August 20.

The policy means a used vehicle could be mechanically sound, structurally intact, properly maintained and compliant with emissions standards, but still be refused entry because it is more than 15 years old.

IMANI also raised questions about the legal basis for the new age restriction, pointing to the Customs (Amendment) Act, 2020, Act 1014.

It said Section 154(3) of the law provides that the Finance Minister, in consultation with the Trade Minister, may, through a Legislative Instrument, specify when vehicles above a certain age can no longer be imported.

The organisation said that the law refers to a 10-year threshold, while the new policy proposes a 15-year limit.

“Fifteen may even be economically more realistic than ten. But administrative convenience cannot perform plastic surgery on an Act of Parliament,” IMANI said.

It called on the government to produce the relevant Legislative Instrument and explain the legal basis linking the existing law to the new 15-year restriction.

“A press conference is not subsidiary legislation. Neither is a PowerPoint presentation wearing a government logo,” it said.

IMANI said concerns raised by the Vehicle and Assets Dealers Union of Ghana should not simply be dismissed as an attempt by dealers to protect their businesses.

The union’s President General, Bernard Ntrakwah, has supported the GSA’s efforts to keep dangerous vehicles out of the country but objected to what he described as a blanket 15-year exclusion.

According to IMANI, that distinction is important because it shows that supporting tougher vehicle safety standards does not necessarily mean supporting an age-based ban.

“One can support tougher safety standards without accepting that age is the best measure of safety,” it said.

IMANI argued that the age of a vehicle does not automatically determine its safety condition.

“A 16-year-old Toyota with an impeccable service history, sound chassis, functional airbags, good brakes and acceptable emissions does not become a public menace at midnight on its birthday,” it said.

At the same time, it noted that a much newer vehicle could have been poorly maintained, badly repaired or otherwise rendered unsafe.

“If danger is the disease, test for danger. Do not diagnose a vehicle by its birth certificate,” IMANI said.

The think tank also warned that the proposed restriction could have wider economic consequences because the used vehicle market supports a large network of businesses and workers.

It said the economic activity linked to an imported used vehicle extends beyond the importer and dealer to mechanics, spare parts sellers, tyre dealers, transport operators, electricians, body shops and other businesses.

“The used vehicle sitting in a garage feeds an ecosystem,” IMANI said.

“Someone imports it. Someone clears it. Someone transports it. Someone services it. Someone sells tyres for it. Someone repairs its electrical system. Someone sells replacement parts. Someone sprays it. Someone drives it commercially.”

It therefore urged policymakers to consider the livelihoods that could be affected by restricting access to cheaper used vehicles.

IMANI also questioned whether the restriction could make vehicle ownership more difficult for lower-income Ghanaians.

It argued that removing older and cheaper vehicles from the market would not automatically make consumers financially capable of buying newer ones.

“You cannot legislate a man into a newer car,” it said.

According to the organisation, a consumer who cannot afford a newer vehicle may simply continue using an older vehicle already in the country.

It warned that this could create an unintended consequence where a policy designed to modernise Ghana’s vehicle fleet could instead encourage people to keep older vehicles on the road for longer.

IMANI also acknowledged the need to support Ghana’s domestic automotive industry but said such support should be based on measurable economic benefits rather than simply restricting imports.

It called on the government to provide data on the number of vehicles assembled locally, jobs created, local content in assembled vehicles and the number of components manufactured in Ghana.

It also asked the government to disclose the value of tax incentives granted to vehicle assemblers and compare those benefits with the customs revenue, businesses and livelihoods that could potentially be affected by the restriction on used vehicle imports.

“Patriotism is not an exemption from arithmetic,” IMANI said.

The organisation further raised concerns about the implementation of the Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVoC) system, under which importers may have to pay approved third-party inspection companies abroad before vehicles are shipped to Ghana.

It called for greater transparency over the companies involved, including who owns them, how they were selected and what fees they charge.

IMANI also wants to know who audits the inspection companies and what mechanisms are available for importers to challenge an assessment they believe is incorrect.

“A compulsory certificate can become a private tax wearing a safety vest,” it said.

IMANI said Ghana could pursue stronger vehicle safety standards without relying solely on age restrictions.

It called for continued efforts to prevent flooded vehicles, fire-damaged wrecks, vehicles with compromised chassis and fraudulent conversions from entering the country.

It also advocated stronger vehicle history checks, emissions standards and rigorous roadworthiness testing.

“Keep the prohibition on flooded vehicles. Keep out fire damaged wrecks. Reject compromised chassis. Stop fraudulent conversions. Verify vehicle histories. Strengthen emissions standards. Make roadworthiness testing merciless,” it said.

The organisation said the government must demonstrate why a vehicle that passes rigorous structural, mechanical, emissions and history checks should still be rejected solely because it is more than 15 years old.

“A good vehicle policy should punish defects, not dates,” IMANI said.

It said Ghana should not be forced to choose between becoming a dumping ground for unsafe vehicles and making affordable mobility inaccessible to ordinary citizens.

“The real test is whether the restriction is lawful, the safety evidence is compelling, the economics are survivable and the burden imposed on citizens is proportionate,” IMANI said.

“Safety must be proved. Regulation must be lawful. Policy must survive arithmetic.”

Read also: GSA: New vehicle rules are not a ban on used cars

Below is the full artice:

GSA’S BLANKET BAN ON 15 YEAR OLD VEHICLES — IMANI

Should Age Outweigh Roadworthiness in Vehicle Regulation? Are We Regulating Danger or Birthdays?

Ghana has every right to stop dangerous vehicles at its borders. A flooded car dressed in fresh paint does not become safe because somebody polished the dashboard. A wreck reconstructed for resale does not acquire structural integrity because Customs stamped its papers.

On that principle, the Ghana Standards Authority deserves support.

But that is precisely where the real argument begins.

The central question is not whether Ghana should regulate dangerous vehicles. It should. The question is whether age should outweigh roadworthiness in deciding which vehicles may enter the country.

From October 1, Ghana proposes to prevent the importation of used vehicles older than fifteen years under the GS 4510:2022 conformity regime. That means a vehicle may be mechanically sound, structurally intact, properly maintained and emissions compliant, yet still fail at the border because of its birthday.

Before we applaud, government must answer a fundamental question:

Are we regulating danger or regulating birthdays?

The Customs (Amendment) Act, 2020, Act 1014, already addressed age restrictions. Section 154(3) provides that the Finance Minister, in consultation with the Trade Minister, may by Legislative Instrument specify when vehicles over ten years shall no longer be imported.

That is Parliament speaking.

Today we are hearing fifteen years.

Fine. Fifteen may even be economically more realistic than ten. But administrative convenience cannot perform plastic surgery on an Act of Parliament. Produce the Legislative Instrument. Identify the statutory bridge between Parliament’s ten year architecture and GSA’s fifteen year rule.

A press conference is not subsidiary legislation.

Neither is a PowerPoint presentation wearing a government logo.

This is precisely why concerns from the Vehicle and Assets Dealers Union of Ghana deserve serious attention rather than dismissal as traders protecting their pockets. Its President General, Bernard Ntrakwah, supports GSA’s intervention to sanitise the industry and keep dangerous vehicles out. His objection is to the blanket fifteen year exclusion and its consequences for dealers, consumers and the wider automotive value chain.

That distinction matters because it exposes the false choice at the heart of this debate.

One can support tougher safety standards without accepting that age is the best measure of safety.

A sixteen year old Toyota with an impeccable service history, sound chassis, functional airbags, good brakes and acceptable emissions does not become a public menace at midnight on its birthday. Meanwhile, a seven year old vehicle can be abused, badly repaired and mechanically dangerous.

If danger is the disease, test for danger.

Do not diagnose a vehicle by its birth certificate.

The economic implications are even harder to ignore.

The used vehicle sitting in a garage feeds an ecosystem. Someone imports it. Someone clears it. Someone transports it. Someone services it. Someone sells tyres for it. Someone repairs its electrical system. Someone sells replacement parts. Someone sprays it. Someone drives it commercially.

Industrial policy cannot count jobs inside an assembly plant while treating livelihoods outside its gates as statistical litter.

And then there is the Ghanaian consumer.

If government removes the cheaper end of the vehicle market, where is the affordable credit that allows the buyer to climb upward?

You cannot legislate a man into a newer car.

If he cannot afford the replacement, he does not magically become richer because GSA changed the standard. He may simply keep the twenty five year old vehicle he already owns running for another five years.

That creates a dangerous paradox.

A policy designed to modernise Ghana’s fleet could end up keeping even older vehicles on the road for longer.

There is also the question of local assembly.

Ghana should support the development of a domestic automotive industry. But that industry deserves protection because it creates measurable Ghanaian value, not merely because imported competition has been administratively weakened.

Show us the numbers. How many vehicles are actually assembled in Ghana each year? How many permanent Ghanaian jobs have been created? How much genuine local content exists? How many components are manufactured here? How much does the State sacrifice in tax incentives to assemblers? Then compare those benefits with the Customs revenue, businesses and livelihoods potentially displaced across Ghana’s used vehicle economy.

Patriotism is not an exemption from arithmetic.

And PVoC introduces another question.

If a Ghanaian importer must pay an approved third party abroad before his vehicle may enter Ghana, tell us who owns the inspection companies, how they were selected, what they charge, who audits them and where an importer appeals when they get it wrong.

A compulsory certificate can become a private tax wearing a safety vest.

Keep the prohibition on flooded vehicles. Keep out fire damaged wrecks. Reject compromised chassis. Stop fraudulent conversions. Verify vehicle histories. Strengthen emissions standards. Make roadworthiness testing merciless.

But if a fifteen year old vehicle passes rigorous structural, mechanical, emissions and history tests, government must demonstrate why age alone should pronounce the final sentence.

That is the heart of the matter.

A good vehicle policy should punish defects, not dates.

Ghana should not have to choose between becoming a dumping ground for dangerous vehicles and pricing ordinary citizens out of mobility. That is a false choice.

The real test is whether the restriction is lawful, the safety evidence is compelling, the economics are survivable and the burden imposed on citizens is proportionate.

Safety must be proved. Regulation must be lawful. Policy must survive arithmetic.

Because if a roadworthy car can be rejected solely because it is fifteen years old, Ghana must answer the question this policy keeps avoiding:

Are we regulating danger or birthdays?

If the answer is birthdays, then the problem is not the car.

It is the policy.

By: Kay Codjoe, Writer and IMANI Associate