A coalition of trade and business associations has strongly opposed a directive by the Ministry of Finance requiring all marine cargo bound for Ghana to be compulsorily insured with local insurance companies, describing the policy as an unnecessary burden on businesses and an instance of regulatory overreach.

The Coalition of Concerned Exporters, Importers, Traders and Freight Forwarders, together with the Food and Beverages Association of Ghana (FABAG) and the Traders Advocacy Group Ghana (TAGG), said the directive—intended to enforce Section 222 of the Insurance Act, 2021 (Act 1061)—would increase the cost of doing business and undermine free commercial decision-making.

No Public Risk Justification

In a statement signed by the Convener of the Coalition of Concerned Exporters, Importers, Traders and Freight Forwarders, Mr Michael Obiri-Adjei, the groups argued that marine cargo insurance is a private commercial risk arrangement between buyers, sellers and financiers and does not present any public third-party risk that warrants compulsory regulation.

The statement stressed that mandatory insurance is justified only in situations where activities pose clear risks to third parties, such as motor third-party insurance or insurance for public commercial facilities. “Marine cargo insurance does not fall within this category,” the coalition noted.

Anti-Competitive Concerns

The groups further criticised the directive for creating what they described as a de facto local monopoly, warning that it is anti-competitive and would compel businesses to purchase more expensive insurance policies—costs that would ultimately be passed on to consumers.

They argued that forcing traders to insure cargo locally, even when foreign insurers offer more competitive options, contradicts government efforts to reduce the cost of doing business.

Practical Industry Challenges

The coalition also highlighted practical challenges within the shipping industry, noting that most international trade transactions are conducted under Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) terms, under which suppliers already arrange insurance.

According to the statement, enforcing an additional local insurance requirement would result in unnecessary double insurance without any added benefit.

It further noted that in credit-based transactions, suppliers often retain ownership interests in goods, making it impractical for local traders to dictate insurance arrangements.

Call for Stakeholder Engagement

While commending recent fiscal measures that have helped stabilise the cedi, the coalition warned that the proposed insurance mandate could reverse recent cost-saving gains.

The statement urged the Ministry of Finance to withdraw the directive—scheduled to take effect on February 1, 2026—and to engage industry stakeholders to develop a more practical and inclusive marine insurance policy framework.