Ghana's Hemp Law vs. the Chiefs: A Cultural Divide Over Cannabis

October 8, 2026

Photo by MurrrPhoto via Pixabay.

Ghana passed one of West Africa's earliest hemp reforms back in May 2020, a move that at the time looked like it might put the country ahead of regional peers still treating cannabis exclusively as contraband. Six years on, the number of farmers holding an actual legal license to grow it sits at essentially zero, and the first real licensing notice didn't appear until February 2026. That gap -- between the statute Parliament wrote and what's actually permitted to happen in a forest clearing outside Kumasi -- is the real story here, more interesting than the reform itself.

Part of the problem is procedural, part of it is financial, and part of it is something national lawmakers in Accra never fully reckoned with: land in much of Ashanti and the surrounding forest belt doesn't answer to Parliament alone. Stool land is administered by paramount chiefs and local councils under customary authority that has operated, uninterrupted, for far longer than Ghana's narcotics statutes have existed. A farmer can satisfy every requirement the Narcotics Control Commission puts in front of him and still need a chief's blessing to break ground.

What follows is a story about layered authority rather than a single bad law or a single obstinate chief. Parliament passed a reform, the Supreme Court struck part of it down on a technicality, Parliament fixed it, a regulator took years to build a licensing mechanism, and underneath all of that sits a parallel system of land governance that nobody in Accra wrote into the plan. Each layer is legitimate within its own domain. None of them, on its own, controls the outcome.

Act 1019 and the Legal Back-and-Forth That Followed

Act 1019, formally the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020, received presidential assent on 11 May 2020 and replaced the older narcotics law that had governed Ghana's drug enforcement for decades. Buried in Section 43 was the provision that mattered most for hemp: it redefined cannabis sativa with a THC content of 0.3% or less as a non-narcotic plant, which on paper opened the door to licensed industrial cultivation for fiber, seed, and CBD extraction, separate from the marijuana still treated as a controlled substance.

That provision didn't survive cleanly. In July 2022, Ghana's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Section 43 was unconstitutional -- not because the underlying policy was objectionable, but because of how it had moved through Parliament. The majority found procedural defects in the legislative process itself, and when the court revisited the matter in May 2023, it reaffirmed that finding rather than reversing course.

Parliament's fix came at the end of that year: the Narcotics Control Commission (Amendment) Act, 2023, passed on 14 December 2023, paired with a dedicated legislative instrument, L.I. 2475, laying out implementing regulations. The amendment restored hemp's non-narcotic classification while cleaning up the procedural defects the court had flagged.

The episode is worth sitting with because it shows how fragile a reform can be when the fight isn't over substance at all. Nobody on the Supreme Court bench was arguing that low-THC hemp should remain criminalized -- the dispute was entirely about parliamentary process, about whether the bill cleared the correct procedural hurdles on its way to becoming law. That's a different kind of vulnerability than a reform facing direct political opposition, and it meant Ghana effectively lost a year between the first ruling and the fix, with legal uncertainty hanging over every would-be cultivator in the interim.

Why Nobody Was Actually Licensed Until 2026

Photo by SINAL Multimédia via Pexels.

Even after Parliament cleared up the constitutional defect in late 2023, the licensing regime that was supposed to follow didn't materialize for more than two years. NACOC's Deputy Director-General, Alexander Twum-Barimah, said as much publicly in June 2025: nobody had been licensed, and anyone planting cannabis anywhere in the country at that point still faced the full weight of the law, regardless of THC content or stated intent. The amendment act existed. The regulations existed. The bureaucratic machinery to actually issue a license did not.

That changed, at least on paper, with a NACOC notice dated 11 February 2026, which finally opened a formal licensing pathway more than three years after the amendment act passed. Ghana's Interior Minister, Muntaka Mohammed-Mubarak, gave the effort a higher public profile around 26 February 2026, formally launching what's being called the Cannabis Regulatory Programme.

The program comes with real restrictions built in. Eligibility is limited to Ghanaian citizens or residents aged 18 and older, and corporate applicants have to show at least 50% Ghanaian ownership along with a majority of Ghanaian directors on the board -- a deliberate guardrail against foreign capital swooping in to dominate a market Ghanaian smallholders have effectively cultivated informally for years.

What this timeline really underscores is a distinction that gets lost in headlines about reform dates: a law existing on the books is not the same thing as a functioning licensing bureaucracy existing on the ground. Ghana had a legally non-narcotic plant for nearly six years before a single person could obtain a permit to grow it commercially. Any farmer who tried to get ahead of that process by planting early did so entirely at their own legal risk, license or no license.

The Price of Going Legal: Fees That Priced Out Farmers

Ghana's reported hemp licensing fees range widely, from about $9,000 for a minimum 0.4-hectare plot up to $45,000 per hectare, highlighting a steep cost barrier for larger-scale growers.

Once the Cannabis Regulatory Programme actually launched, the fee schedule attached to it became its own controversy. Reported licensing costs run as high as $45,000 per hectare, with a minimum fee around $9,000 required just to license a plot of 0.4 hectares -- roughly an acre. For a cash crop that's grown informally and cheaply across parts of the Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, and Western forest belt, that's not a modest barrier to entry. It's a wall.

Nana Kwaku Agyemang, CEO of the Hemp Association of Ghana, didn't mince words about where that pricing came from, saying the fee structure reflected a drafting process that left out HAG and other industry stakeholders who might have flagged how unworkable the numbers were for actual farmers. A licensing regime built without input from the people expected to use it tends to produce exactly this kind of mismatch -- fees calibrated for institutional investors or large agribusiness operations, not the smallholders who've been quietly growing hemp in forest clearings for a generation.

The pushback didn't stay rhetorical. A farmer reportedly filed a Supreme Court challenge against the licensing framework in early 2026, citing the restrictive fee structure as the central grievance -- a direct echo of the procedural challenge that unraveled Section 43 back in 2022, except this time aimed at the economics of the rollout rather than the legislative process that produced it.

Put the numbers side by side and the barrier comes into focus quickly: a $9,000 minimum fee for a 0.4-hectare plot, scaling up toward $45,000 per hectare for larger operations, in a country where much of the existing cultivation happens on land farmers don't own outright and where cash incomes in rural forest communities rarely approach those figures in a given year. A licensing system priced for commercial-scale operators effectively excludes the subsistence and small-plot growers who make up the bulk of Ghana's existing hemp cultivation, legal status notwithstanding.

The Forest Zones Where Hemp Already Grows -- Quietly

Photo by lapping via Pixabay.

None of this licensing drama happens in a vacuum, because illegal cultivation in Ghana didn't wait around for Parliament or NACOC to sort things out. It has long concentrated in the forest zones of Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, and Western regions, where climate, soil, and tree cover have made covert cultivation both practical and profitable for years, regardless of what the law technically said at any given moment.

That profitability is the whole explanation for why the practice persisted through years of legal murkiness. When a crop pays well and enforcement is inconsistent, farmers plant it -- the legal status of hemp bounced between non-narcotic, unconstitutional, and non-narcotic again between 2020 and 2023, and informal cultivation in these forest belts didn't meaningfully pause for any of those shifts.

The overlap between these growing regions and the zones of strongest customary land authority isn't a coincidence worth glossing over. The same forest-belt communities where hemp has grown informally for generations are precisely where chieftaincy councils hold the tightest practical grip on who gets access to land and for what purpose. National legal status and local land governance converge in exactly the places where the stakes are highest.

That leaves farmers in these zones facing a real choice, not a hypothetical one: keep growing informally under whatever customary land arrangement they've already got with a local chief or family head, accepting the enforcement risk that comes with no license, or attempt the formal route -- a license that, per current NACOC guidance, still exposes anyone caught growing without one to prosecution, full stop. There's no soft landing in between. Given the fee structure described above, it's not hard to guess which option most smallholders are actually choosing.

Where Chieftaincy Authority Complicates National Law

Photo by Yahaya Tetteh via Pexels.

Stool land -- land held in trust by a chief on behalf of a community, rather than owned outright by any individual -- is the backbone of land tenure across much of Ashanti and the surrounding forest region. Paramount chiefs and the councils beneath them allocate it, settle disputes over it, and have done so under a system of customary authority that predates Ghana's current constitution and operates alongside national statutes rather than beneath them.

That authority has real teeth. A paramount chief or local council can effectively restrict what gets grown on stool land within their jurisdiction regardless of what Accra permits at the national level. Hemp, given its history and its association with marijuana cultivation, is exactly the kind of crop some councils have chosen to keep off their land even as national law moved toward permitting it.

The practical result is a second licensing system that exists nowhere in Act 1019, L.I. 2475, or any NACOC notice -- but exists all the same. A farmer can clear every national requirement, pay the fee, pass the background checks, and still be told no by the traditional authority that actually controls access to the parcel of land he wants to farm. Satisfying NACOC is necessary but not sufficient.

What's notable is that none of Ghana's national legislative work on this -- not Act 1019 as originally passed, not the 2023 amendment, not L.I. 2475 -- built in a formal mechanism for reconciling customary land authority with narcotics licensing. The two systems were drafted as if the other didn't exist. For any reader trying to figure out the actual, current stance of a specific council -- in Ashanti or elsewhere in the forest belt -- the honest answer is that this layer of governance isn't centrally documented the way national statutes are, and the only reliable path is checking directly with the relevant regional house of chiefs or local traditional council, since positions can and do vary community by community and can change.

What a Workable Compromise Would Need to Look Like

Photo by 2H Media via Unsplash.

A fee schedule that charges the same minimum regardless of farm size guarantees that only well-capitalized operators participate. A tiered structure -- lower fees scaled to smaller plots, with the $9,000-and-up tier reserved for genuinely commercial-scale operations -- would be the single most direct fix available to NACOC, and it wouldn't require another constitutional fight or a new act of Parliament to implement.

The Hemp Association of Ghana has already signaled where it wants to sit in that process: not consulted after the fact, but at the table while the next round of fee and licensing rules gets drafted. Nana Kwaku Agyemang's criticism of the current structure wasn't just a complaint about the numbers -- it was a complaint about who got a say in producing them. Any revision that repeats that exclusion is likely to produce another version of the same mismatch.

Fixing the fee schedule alone won't resolve the deeper issue, though. A durable rollout needs some formal channel of consultation with traditional authorities across the Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, and Western forest belts -- not because NACOC lacks jurisdiction, but because its jurisdiction and customary land authority currently run on separate tracks that were never designed to intersect. A national license that a chief won't honor on stool land solves nothing for the farmer standing in the middle.

Other West African governments watching from the outside have reason to pay close attention to exactly this part of Ghana's experience, more than to the headline fact that reclassification happened at all. Reclassifying hemp as agriculture is the comparatively easy legislative move. Building a licensing system that smallholders can actually afford, and that aligns with how land is actually allocated on the ground, is the harder and more instructive problem -- and it's the one Ghana still hasn't solved.

Ghana's statute books now treat low-THC hemp as an agricultural commodity rather than a narcotic, and that's a genuine, hard-won legislative achievement -- it survived a Supreme Court reversal, a parliamentary rewrite, and years of regulatory limbo to get there. But a law is only as real as the number of people willing and able to actually operate under it, and on that measure the reform has barely begun.

Until the licensing fees come down to something a smallholder in the forest belt can realistically pay, and until customary land authority gets some formal channel for interacting with national narcotics regulation instead of running alongside it unacknowledged, the farmers who've grown hemp informally in Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, and the Western region for years have little real incentive to go legal. The informal path carries legal risk; the formal path carries a price tag most of them can't meet and a chief's veto they can't appeal to NACOC.

The next meaningful test for this reform isn't another amendment bill moving through Parliament in Accra. It's whether NACOC regulators and traditional councils in Ashanti and the other forest-belt regions ever actually sit down at the same table to work out how a national license and a chief's consent are supposed to coexist. Until that happens, Ghana will keep having two cannabis laws running in parallel -- one written in Accra, one held in the customary authority of stool land -- and farmers caught between them will keep making the same quiet calculation they've made for years.