Ghana’s proposed hemp framework, made public late last year, raises basic questions about what policymakers are trying to achieve, given a fee structure that is wildly out of step with the realities of an emerging agricultural sector.
The recommended fees start at $9,000 for farms up to 0.4 hectares, and rise to $45,000 per hectare for larger operations; additional annual regulatory fees run a 20% of the base license. Separate fees are set for base licenses that cover processing, export, transport, research, and other activities.
Stakeholders say that the rules and fees, which have been submitted to Parliament but still require ratification, are more likely to deter investment than encourage it. That would certainly appear to be the case at first glance.
‘Highest in the world’
In a letter to Deputy Speaker of Parliament Bernard Ahiafor, hemp advocate Nana Kwaku Agyemang, director of Hempire Agric Ghana Ltd, described the proposed hemp framework as having “the highest fees in the world” based on his comparison with other markets.
“This amount is unreasonably high for what is only the preliminary stage of the process and bears no resemblance to licensing structures elsewhere in Africa or globally,” Agyemang said in the letter. He warned that, if not amended, the fee structure risks “excluding the very Ghanaian farmers and entrepreneurs the law was intended to empower.”
Agyemang later told CannaBiz Africa that the proposed fee structure appears designed to block local participation. “They want to stop the indigenous from taking part in the industry. That’s their aim,” he said.
Against the grain
What makes the proposed approach more puzzling is that Ghana has already been advised, in detail, to go in the opposite direction. A 2021 report by Chinese researchers recommended that licensing fees be flexible and designed to allow local entrepreneurs to establish themselves first, explicitly cautioning Ghana to avoid frameworks such as Lesotho’s, where only large corporations could afford licensing fees that reached as high as $37,000.
The report argued that fees should be suitable for small-scale farmers, and that Ghana should structure its rules to favor domestic investors and farmers under a capable public agency tasked with developing the sector. The current draft, at least on paper, cuts directly against that advice.
Currency craziness
There is also a practical commercial and investment layer to the situation in Ghana. The draft specifies fees in U.S. dollars while requiring payment in Ghanaian cedis at the prevailing exchange rate. Because the cedi has experienced repeated and sometimes sharp devaluations, the real local-currency cost of a dollar-denominated fee can rise suddenly between the time an investor assesses an opportunity and the time payment is due.
That volatility increases investment risk, complicates project finance, budgeting and capital planning, and can effectively price out smaller domestic operators, meaning the practical burden of the fees may be significantly higher than the already daunting headline figures.
Well-traveled road
Zimbabwe’s early hemp framework also initially contemplated high licensing fees that raised similar concerns about excluding smaller local participants. That approach did not persist. As implementation unfolded and the sector proved slower and more fragile than anticipated, regulators adjusted, and licensing costs ceased to be the dominant barrier. More recent reporting on Zimbabwe points to structural and commercial constraints as the main factors holding back growth, rather than prohibitive permit fees.
In Ghana, the sector has moved in fits and starts. A 2020 law legalizing cannabis for medical and industrial purposes was overturned by the courts on procedural grounds, contributing to years of uncertainty. Parliament passed amendments in 2023 that set the legal THC limit for hemp at 0.3% on a dry-weight basis and clarified licensing authority under the Ministry of the Interior. Detailed implementing regulations, including how products such as CBD would be handled, remain in draft form and have not been finalized or ratified.
Misfire?
The uncomfortable question still hanging is whether the proposed sky-high fees reflect a genuine policy misfire or something more deliberate. Are some actors attempting to design a system that concentrates control in the hands of a few well-capitalized players?
Or are policymakers still operating on outdated assumptions about hemp riches shaped by the early global CBD boom, when inflated expectations briefly distorted how governments viewed the economics of the crop?
If the latter, the figures begin to look less strategic than simply untethered from reality. Either way, the result is the same: a proposed framework that, as written, looks less like an engine for sector development and more like a gate that very few will be able to pass through.