By Dr Faith Ababio Twi
There is something about the recent conversation surrounding the number of mobile phones and other electronic devices a traveller can bring into Ghana that should make all of us pause and think.
At first glance, it appears to be a simple matter about mobile phones and customs duties. But when I look beyond the gadgets themselves, I see a much bigger question about how we design and implement public policies in this country.
The question I keep asking myself is simple: When rules are not clear enough, who benefits from the confusion?
That is where my concern begins.
I have no problem with the state collecting taxes and duties from goods brought into the country for commercial purposes. Every responsible country has systems for protecting its revenue and regulating imports. Ghana cannot be different.
But there must be a clear distinction between protecting state revenue and creating unnecessary uncertainty for ordinary citizens.
Imagine a Ghanaian living abroad who returns home with five phones. He uses one for work and another one for personal communication, while others are for parents and siblings. Imagine another traveller carrying a new phone purchased as a gift for a relative, or bringing a phone, tablet, laptop or smartwatch for his or her children, wife, husband or another member of the household.
These are ordinary circumstances for people travelling home to visit their families, and they should not automatically be treated as evidence of commercial importation. Gifts are taxable, but what is the threshold? How much can one give without paying tax? Is the value of the phone above the threshold for a gift?
Should such a person immediately feel nervous because he or she has crossed an invisible line?
That is not how a modern tax system should operate.
People should know the rules before they travel. They should know what they are allowed to carry, what they must declare and when they are expected to pay duty.
When people do not know these things, they become dependent on whoever is interpreting the rules at the point of entry.
And that is precisely where we need to be careful.
Discretion is necessary in some areas of public administration. Customs officers must sometimes examine goods and determine whether they are personal belongings or commercial imports.
But discretion without clear guidelines can become problematic.
Two people can arrive at the same airport with similar items, yet if the rules are not sufficiently clear, their experiences may be completely different.
One may be allowed to proceed without difficulty.
The other may be asked to pay money he did not expect to pay.
He may ask questions.
He may disagree.
He may be told to wait.
And eventually, a frustrated traveller may begin looking for another way to resolve the matter.
This is where the conversation about corruption enters.
Corruption does not always begin with someone sitting down and planning to steal from the state.
Sometimes, corruption grows out of weak systems, uncertainty and excessive discretion.
When citizens do not know what they are supposed to pay, they can become vulnerable to exploitation. When officials have too much room to determine charges without sufficient transparency, the system becomes vulnerable as well.
That is why I believe Ghana must take this matter seriously.
Let us not wait until there is a major scandal before we start asking questions about how the system works.
Prevention is always better than investigation after the damage has been done.
The solution is not to attack Customs officers.
Neither is it to encourage travellers to evade their responsibilities.
The solution is to make the rules so clear that there is little room for manipulation.
But I also believe we should be thinking beyond simply counting the number of phones or gadgets in someone’s luggage.
If Customs has access to a traveller’s relevant entry and exit records, why can’t that information form part of the assessment?
For instance, a person who travels into Ghana regularly carrying similar quantities of brand-new electronic devices may present a different set of circumstances from someone who returns home once in a long while with a few personal gadgets.
That does not mean a traveller’s previous travel history should automatically determine whether he or she pays tax. It should rather be one piece of information among several factors considered when determining whether goods are genuinely personal effects or part of a commercial activity.
Technology gives us an opportunity to make these assessments more intelligent and less dependent on guesswork.
The GRA has indicated that it is moving towards the use of Advanced Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record systems to improve passenger profiling and Customs operations.
Tax rates should be published in tax circulars every year. Lawmakers and tax commissioners should come out with percentage duty on phones and other electronic devices and make it public. The challenge here is that only Customs computers or Customs bales determine the duty one is to pay – transparency!
That is the direction I believe we should encourage.
If the system can establish how frequently a person travels, what relevant declarations have previously been made and whether there is a recurring pattern involving large quantities of similar goods, Customs can make a more informed assessment.
At the same time, safeguards must be put in place to protect legitimate travellers from being unfairly profiled.
A person should not be treated as a commercial importer simply because he or she travels frequently.
The information should support the assessment, not replace proper judgement.
There is another important point that I believe the public discussion must make clear.
This matter is not only about mobile phones.
We are talking about electronic gadgets and other goods carried by travellers, including laptops, tablets, smartwatches and similar devices. The GRA has itself clarified that the principle being applied is broader than phones: Customs looks at whether goods are genuinely for personal use or whether the circumstances indicate that they are being brought in for another person, for sale, distribution or other commercial purposes.
That makes the need for clear rules even more important.
If a traveller upgrades a phone on a trip, one for a spouse and three for kids, I should not be left wondering whether I will suddenly be confronted with an unexpected charge simply because I have several electronic devices with me. What matters is how many times the traveller embarked on trips during the last three months or six months. What is the economic value of buying one extra phone and selling it in Ghana?
The GRA’s own passenger guidance says personal effects should be for the passenger’s use and not for sale or trade, while commercial goods are subject to declaration and the applicable customs procedures.
So let us focus on that principle.
The question should not simply be, “How many devices are you carrying?”
The better questions are: Are these devices genuinely yours? Are they already in use? Are they new and commercially packaged? Are they being carried for another person? Is there evidence that they are intended for sale or distribution?
Those questions provide a more meaningful basis for assessment than an arbitrary number alone.
If a traveller is required to pay duty, let the calculation be clear.
If an item is considered commercial, let the criteria be clearly stated.
If there is a dispute, let there be a straightforward appeals process.
If money must be paid, let it be paid through an official channel.
And if an officer makes an assessment, let that assessment be recorded electronically.
These are simple safeguards, but they can make a significant difference.
Technology should also become a much bigger part of our customs administration.
We are living in an era where transactions can be recorded instantly. There is no reason why a traveller should have to depend entirely on a verbal explanation about what he owes.
A digital assessment can show the value of the item, the applicable duty and the final amount.
That protects everyone.
It protects the government because the revenue is properly recorded.
It protects the traveller because there is evidence of what was charged.
And it protects the officer because there is a transparent record of the transaction.
We should also be careful about the language we use in public discussions.
Once people hear phrases such as “two phones,” they may immediately assume that the law has created a fixed limit.
But the GRA has clarified that there is no automatic rule that carrying more than two phones results in Customs duty. The number of phones alone does not determine whether duty is payable.
That clarification is important.
But it should also encourage us to ask whether the public has been given enough information to understand how the system actually works.
Taxation and customs administration cannot be governed by rumours, social media discussions or interpretations passed from one traveller to another.
The law must speak clearly.
Government institutions must communicate clearly.
And citizens must be given the opportunity to understand their obligations.
If the rules are clear, compliance becomes easier.
If the rules are confusing, compliance becomes a negotiation.
And whenever compliance becomes a negotiation, we create unnecessary opportunities for misconduct.
This is why I do not believe the debate should end with whether the so-called two-phone rule exists or does not exist.
We should ask a bigger question: How can Ghana build a Customs system where neither the traveller nor the officer has to rely on ambiguity?
That is the real issue.
We should also recognise that travellers have responsibilities. If someone is importing phones, laptops, tablets, watches or other goods for business, that person should declare them and pay the appropriate duties.
We cannot demand accountability from public officials while encouraging citizens to circumvent the law.
Accountability must work both ways.
But the state has a greater responsibility because it makes the rules and controls the system.
Government must therefore ensure that the rules are accessible, understandable and consistently applied.
Ghana has made progress in digitalising public services. Customs administration should continue in that direction.
The fewer unnecessary face-to-face negotiations between citizens and officials, the better.
Not because every officer is dishonest.
Far from it.
It is because good systems should not depend on the personal integrity of individuals alone.
A strong institution is one where the system itself makes wrongdoing difficult.
That is the standard we should demand.
So, for me, this is not really a debate about two phones.
It is a debate about whether Ghana is prepared to build public institutions where rules are clear, taxes are transparent and citizens are treated consistently.
We can protect government revenue without making ordinary travellers feel as though every personal gadget in their luggage is a potential tax problem.
We can use technology and travel information to make better assessments.
We can distinguish genuine personal effects from commercial imports.
Travellers should not be treated as criminals for carrying an extra phone or someone carrying illegal commodities into the country.
And we can do all of this while protecting citizens from arbitrary treatment.
If we get that right, the argument over phones will eventually become insignificant.
But if we fail to learn from this debate, similar controversies will continue to emerge around the treatment of travellers and their belongings.
Corruption does not always enter through a broken door.
Sometimes, we leave the door slightly open through confusion, poor communication and weak systems.
The responsibility is ours to close it.
