A Ghanaian investor has sued the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the High Court, challenging its new market levy regime. Daniel Ofori Jnr argues that the SEC's 2026 Guidelines on Market Levies are unconstitutional. He contends these charges directly erode private investment capital, even when investments do not make a profit.
Mr. Ofori Jnr seeks a court declaration that key provisions of the 2026 guidelines are unlawful. He claims their application violates his constitutional rights to property, equality, and administrative justice. The lawsuit names the Securities and Exchange Commission as the sole respondent in this application for fundamental human rights enforcement.
This case arrives at a critical juncture for Ghana’s capital markets, which seek to attract and retain investor confidence. The dispute highlights ongoing discussions about regulatory burdens and investor protection within the financial sector. It also raises questions about how regulatory costs are distributed among market participants. Previous regulatory adjustments have often focused on licensed operators, not direct investor capital. The outcome could influence future policy decisions regarding market supervision and investor rights.
According to the affidavit supporting the application, Mr. Ofori Jnr holds funds managed by Bora Capital Advisors Limited. He states the SEC's guidelines directly impact his investment and property rights. He specifically challenges paragraphs 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 of the 2026 guidelines. These provisions impose a 0.20% levy on Collective Investment Schemes, Real Estate Investment Trusts, and retail wealth-management portfolios. Institutional wealth-management portfolios and private funds face a 0.10% charge.
Mr. Ofori Jnr's core complaint is that the guidelines place the levy burden directly on clients. This differs from imposing it on the regulated institutions themselves. He argues the levy is calculated from the Net Asset Value of clients’ current holdings. This applies regardless of whether the investment is profitable or generates income. He states this mechanism systematically reduces investment principal simply because assets remain professionally managed. This challenges the conventional understanding of regulatory fees versus property acquisition.
The case could set an important precedent for financial regulation in Ghana. It will test the extent to which a regulator can transfer supervision costs directly to investors. Market participants and policymakers will closely watch the court's interpretation of property rights. The ruling could influence how financial regulators fund their operations across the continent. It may also lead to a re-evaluation of current levy structures.
Mr. Ofori Jnr's case rests on three main constitutional claims. First, unlawful interference with property rights. He argues that repeated deductions from investment holdings systematically deplete capital without compensation. He invokes Articles 18 and 20 of Ghana's 1992 Constitution, which protect property rights. Second, discriminatory treatment. Third, denial of administrative justice. The SEC has not yet presented its defense, so these are currently allegations. The High Court will ultimately determine the facts and legal implications.