Questions are mounting over the government’s fiscal strategy following public observations by Senior Research Fellow and Development Economist, Dr. George Domfe, regarding a sharp increase in the Energy Sector Levy (ESLA).
The levy has jumped from 24 pesewas to GHS 1.93 per litre, representing a staggering increase of over 700%.
In a post shared on his Facebook page, Dr. Domfe raised concern over the policy shift by the Finance Minister, drawing attention to its noticeably muted presentation during the recent mid-year budget review.
While acknowledging that taxation remains a vital tool for state revenue and economic development, especially, when structured progressively, Dr. Domfe underscored that the magnitude of this levy hike creates a heavy, direct impact on consumers.
Fuel prices inevitably ripple through transport fares, food distribution costs, and the general cost of living across the nation.
Despite the far-reaching economic implications of pushing the levy to GHS 1.93 per litre, the adjustment received barely any mention during official budget presentations, raising questions over transparency in fiscal communications.
At the center of Dr. Domfe’s critique is what he describes as a clear contradiction in the government’s public messaging.
While political communicators and policymakers have consistently pointed to the abolition of the Electronic Transfer Levy (E-Levy) as proof of a pro-taxpayer, “anti-tax” agenda, Dr. Domfe argues that quietly imposing significantly higher burdens on essential commodities contradicts that stance.
“There is nothing inherently wrong with taxes, especially when they are progressive and well justified,” Dr. Domfe stated in his post.
“However, constantly pointing to the abolition of the e-levy as proof of being ‘anti-tax’ while imposing significantly higher levies elsewhere represents the height of disingenuousness,” he added.
Dr. Domfe’s intervention adds to a growing discussion among economists and policy analysts calling for greater transparency and consistency in tax policy.
As households and businesses continue to adapt to cost pressures, analysts argue that fiscal relief in one sector should not be used to mask substantial tax increases in another, demanding a more candid dialogue on how national revenue is raised and managed.