Majority Chief Whip Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor has rejected attempts to liken the proposed charge on mobile money-to-bank transfers to the Electronic Transfer Levy (E-Levy), insisting that the two are entirely different in nature, character, and legal basis.

His comments come amid growing debate over the Bank of Ghana’s decision to suspend the proposed 0.75 percent charge on direct wallet-to-bank transfers following public backlash and concerns raised by stakeholders.

Speaking on PM Express on Tuesday, Mr Dafeamekpor responded to concerns raised by the Minority over the suspended proposed charge.

“Look, they are just trying to push that angle for the sake of propaganda because it is not E-Levy, not in form, not in character, not in nature at all,” he said. “It has no relationship with E-Levy. It is not an E-Levy; it is a levy that a private company intends to impose.”

According to him, the proposed charge should rather be viewed as a service fee introduced by a private entity and not a government-backed tax measure.

“I am saying that this is a service fee. It is never in the nature, character, and form of E-Levy. It is not backed by law, it is not sponsored by the government, and it is not sponsored even by a government agency. So these are the clear material distinctions,” he stated.

The proposed charge, which was expected to take effect from 1 June, was to apply to wallet-to-bank transfers. However, the Bank of Ghana subsequently announced a suspension of the policy, citing the need for further consultations after concerns were raised by the public and industry stakeholders.

The suspension has since triggered criticism from the minority in Parliament, which questioned both the initial announcement of the charge and the explanation offered by the central bank.

Addressing a press conference on Tuesday, May 26, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin expressed concern over the justification that the suspension was intended to allow for “further consultation."

He argued that the justification of “further consultation” was inconsistent with earlier assurances that major policy decisions would follow due process and broad stakeholder engagement before implementation.

According to him, such fiscal measures should ordinarily be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny rather than being introduced and later suspended after public outcry.

However, Mr. Dafeamekpor maintained that comparisons with the former E-Levy were misplaced, stressing that, unlike the E-Levy, the proposed charge did not originate from government policy or parliamentary legislation.

According to the Majority Chief Whip, the proposed mobile money transfer charge lacks those legal and procedural characteristics and therefore cannot be categorised as an E-Levy.