CUTS International, Accra, has called on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) to immediately suspend its escalating “delinquency” charges imposed on motorists who renew or replace expired driver’s licences, arguing that the fees lack a sufficiently clear legal basis and unfairly punish people simply because their licences have expired.
The public policy think tank is demanding full disclosure of the statutory authority, approval process and formula used to determine the charges before the DVLA continues collecting them.
Under the DVLA’s 2026 Summary of Licensing and Other Activity Rates, a driver renewing a licence before its expiry pays GH¢127.
However, the charge rises to GH¢204.25 when the licence has expired for between one day and six months.
It increases to GH¢279.25 for expiry periods of seven to 12 months, GH¢315.25 for up to two years, GH¢352.25 for up to four years and GH¢404.25 where the licence has been expired for more than four years.
The schedule applies similar escalating charges to the replacement of expired licences.
CUTS argues that the automatic increases are unfair and potentially open to abuse unless the DVLA can identify the specific legislation and approved fee item authorising each charge.
“The DVLA must show Ghanaians the law, the approved fee schedule and the formula behind every cedi it collects as a delinquency charge,” Appiah Kusi Adomako, Esq., Director of the West Africa Regional Centre of CUTS International, said.
“Public power must rest on law. If the Authority cannot point to a clear legal basis for each charge, it must stop collecting the money and refund affected licence holders,” he added.
Expiry is not proof of unlawful driving
At the heart of CUTS’ objection is the distinction between an expired licence and the act of driving without a valid licence.
The organisation points to Regulation 46 of the Road Traffic Regulations, 2026 (L.I. 2519), which provides for the renewal of a driver’s licence after expiry.
Regulation 46(1) states that a licence “may” be renewed within one month before its expiry, while Regulation 46(2) expressly addresses renewal after expiry.
According to CUTS, the use of “may” rather than “shall” is important because it indicates that the law does not automatically criminalise the mere fact that a licence has expired.
The regulations separately provide an offence for failure to renew a driver’s licence as prescribed, with a person convicted summarily liable to a fine of between five and 25 penalty units, imprisonment of up to 30 days or both.
CUTS argues that enforcement of the offence is a matter for the appropriate law enforcement and judicial processes and should not automatically translate into an administrative penalty imposed at a DVLA counter.
“The use of the word ‘may’ and not ‘shall’ is a clear reflection of the intention of the lawmakers,” the organisation argues.
It contends that a person should not be presumed to have driven during the period their licence was expired merely because they subsequently go to the DVLA to renew it.
According to CUTS, if the escalating charges are penalties rather than ordinary renewal fees, the DVLA must explain how it can impose them without evidence that the individual drove during the period of expiry, without a hearing and without a court finding.
A licence can expire without a person driving
CUTS says the current system fails to account for circumstances in which a person may hold a driver’s licence but not actually drive for an extended period.
A licence holder could be studying abroad, working outside the country, ill, or simply not using a vehicle for several years.
The organisation argues that in such cases, the expiry of the licence is not evidence that the person committed an offence.
It cited the example of a Ghanaian who leaves the country for a five-year doctoral programme or overseas work assignment. If that person’s Ghanaian driver’s licence expires while abroad, the person may return years later without having driven on Ghanaian roads during the entire period.
Under the current schedule, however, the person could face the highest delinquency charge simply because the licence has been expired for more than four years.
“That citizen should be encouraged to regularise his licence before returning to the road. He should not be branded delinquent and punished as though expiry itself proves unlawful driving,” Mr. Adomako said.
CUTS argues that the system should distinguish between an expired document and the separate act of driving without a valid licence.
Concern over double punishment
The think tank is also raising concerns about the possibility of motorists being punished twice for the same conduct.
It says a driver who has already been prosecuted and fined by a court for driving with an expired licence could subsequently face an additional escalating charge when attempting to renew the licence.
CUTS claims that the DVLA’s system-generated charges may still apply even where a person presents evidence of a court conviction and payment.
The organisation is therefore asking the DVLA and the Ghana Police Service to clearly explain their respective enforcement responsibilities.
It wants the public to know which institution investigates alleged driving without a valid licence, which institution initiates prosecution and under what circumstances the DVLA itself is legally permitted to impose or collect an administrative charge.
Call for refunds
CUTS is calling for the DVLA to stop collecting the disputed charges if it cannot demonstrate a clear legal basis for them.
It is also demanding that the Authority initiate processes to refund motorists who have already paid the charges.
The organisation argues that even if the amounts have subsequently appeared in an approved fees and charges schedule, that alone should not legitimise them if there is no underlying statutory authority for the charge.
CUTS is consequently urging Parliament to conduct an urgent inquiry into the legality, approval and administration of the DVLA’s escalating “delinquency” charges.
GH¢181 record amendment charge criticised
The think tank has also criticised the GH¢181 charge imposed for amending information on a driver’s electronic record.
It argues that charging motorists to update basic information such as their residential address or telephone number could discourage people from keeping their records current.
According to CUTS, accurate contact and residential information is important for road safety, identity verification, criminal investigations and emergency communication.
It is therefore proposing that basic updates to contact information should either be free or attract only a modest, cost-based charge where the change requires the production of a new physical card.
“The DVLA should design fees to support compliance, not discourage it,” Mr. Adomako said.
“When a citizen wants to correct an address or telephone number, the Authority gains better data. Charging GH¢181 for a basic update risks leaving the database outdated and weakens the public interest the database is meant to serve.”
DVLA urged to prioritise legality
CUTS acknowledges that the DVLA requires internally generated funds to provide licensing services but argues that revenue mobilisation cannot override the requirement for public institutions to operate within the law.
It says the Authority must clearly disclose the legal basis for its charges, distinguish ordinary service fees from administrative penalties and ensure that motorists are treated fairly.
For CUTS, the central issue is not whether motorists should be required to maintain valid licences.
Rather, it is whether the expiry of a licence can, without evidence of actual driving during the period of expiry, automatically trigger an escalating financial penalty.
The think tank says strict enforcement against people caught driving without valid licences should continue, but argues that such enforcement must be based on evidence and due process rather than an assumption that every expired licence represents unlawful driving.
It is therefore calling for the immediate suspension and review of the disputed charges, disclosure of their legal and administrative basis, refunds where appropriate and parliamentary scrutiny of the DVLA’s fee regime.
