A legal showdown has commenced at the Supreme Court as a farmer from Techiman, Mariam Alhassan, has filed a landmark suit to strike down the government’s stringent regulatory framework for industrial cannabis cultivation.

The plaintiff is seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the apex court to declare the current licensing fees and entry requirements unconstitutional, arguing they are designed to exclude ordinary Ghanaians from the emerging multi-billion-dollar industry.

The suit, filed at the Supreme Court on Friday, February 27, names the Ministry for the Interior, the Narcotics Control Commission (NACOC), the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, and the Attorney-General as defendants.

“The Defendants acted unfairly and in breach of legitimate expectation by imposing materially higher... fees without reasonable accommodation of the consultative process,” the filing states, noting that the government failed to provide a tiered system that would allow smaller enterprises to enter the market.

At the heart of the legal challenge is the claim that the government has imposed "materially higher, unscaled, and cumulative fees" that make it impossible for smallholder farmers to participate in the legal hemp trade.

Represented by international lawyer Amanda Akuokor Clinton from Clinton Consulting Partners, Madam Alhassan argues that these fees violate Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees administrative justice and fair treatment.

The plaintiff contends that despite extensive stakeholder consultations where "proportionate, tiered, and risk-based regulation" was advocated, the authorities ignored these recommendations in favour of an extortionate fee structure.

Reliefs sought

In the Supreme Court filing, Mariam Alhassan (the Plaintiff) seeks the following reliefs against the Defendants:

• A declaration that the industrial hemp licensing framework established under section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019), as amended, and L.I. 2475, is inconsistent with Articles 17, 23, 36, and 296 of the 1992 Constitution. This is due to its "irrational design, exclusionary economic effect, and disproportionate exercise of administrative discretion".
• A declaration that the high licence fees (up to USD 45,000 per hectare), annual regulatory levies, and percentage-based charges constitute the imposition of de facto taxes. The Plaintiff argues this violates Article 174, which grants taxing power exclusively to Parliament.
• A declaration that the requirement for narcotics-style transport permits and armed security escorts for industrial hemp (containing no more than 0.3% THC) is irrational and arbitrary.
• An order for the Narcotics Control Commission (NACOC) and other relevant ministries to reconsider and redesign the framework to be constitutionally compliant. This redesign must include:
  • Tiered, scaled, and risk-based licence fees.
  • Elimination of narcotics-style transport and escort controls unless objectively justified.
  • Removal of unscaled, cumulative, and USD-denominated fee structures that exclude ordinary Ghanaian citizens.
• An interim order to restrain the enforcement of the challenged fees, levies, and transport/escort requirements until the framework is made compliant.
• Any further orders or directions the Court deems fit to safeguard inclusive economic participation and the rule of law.

Details of the suit

Mariam Alhassan, based in the Bono East Region, represents a growing movement of local farmers who view industrial hemp as a transformative cash crop for the middle belt of Ghana. The suit highlights that industrial hemp (cannabis with low THC levels) is a vital raw material for textiles, construction, and medicine, yet the current "unscaled fees" effectively bar local agriculturalists from the supply chain.

The filing raises several critical questions regarding economic governance and the directive principles of state policy:

"If imported hemp goods circulate normally, can domestic production of the same non-narcotic material rationally be treated as a high-risk narcotics activity?"

The plaintiff argues that the difference creates:
• economic exclusion (Article 17)
• irrational administrative action (Articles 23 & 296)
• potential frustration of economic participation goals (Article 36)
• and possibly de facto taxation through licensing (Article 174).

Consumers face almost no unusual hurdles, but Ghanaian producers face many.

That mismatch between the free entry of finished hemp goods and the heavy restriction of local hemp cultivation is the constitutional tension at the Supreme Court.

The plaintiff is of the view that if a hemp product is imported into Ghana, such as a hemp body scrub, lotion, oil, or cosmetic containing ≤0.3% THC, such goods typically enter the country through ordinary commercial channels because they are treated as finished consumer goods, not narcotic substances.

However, if a Ghanaian farmer produces industrial hemp of the same grade (≤0.3% THC — the same non-psychoactive material), the activity shifts from product regulation to narcotics-administration regulation under the current framework.

The hurdles identified by the plaintiff include:

1. High entry licensing

A Ghanaian producer must obtain:
• cultivation licence
• application approvals
• background/security vetting
• compliance clearances

With fees reaching tens of thousands of USD per hectare in some categories.

2. USD-denominated fees create a structural barrier for local farmers operating in cedis.
   • Payments tied to U.S. dollars
   • Exposure to exchange-rate fluctuations
   • Costs unrelated to farming risk or yield

3. Annual regulatory levies

Even after paying licence fees:
• recurring annual charges (e.g., percentage of licence value)
• payable regardless of production success or market conditions.

4. Layered licensing across the value chain

Separate permissions may be required, with each attracting additional fees for:
• cultivation
• processing
• storage
• transport
• export
• research or testing

5. Transport permits

Moving harvested hemp within Ghana may require:
• official transport authorization
• pre-approved logistics arrangements.

6. Security / escort requirements

Transport may involve:
• supervised or escorted movement
• additional security costs

Controls typically associated with controlled narcotics.

7. Security bonds and compliance costs

Financial guarantees may be required before operations begin.