Property owners who choose to follow Ghana’s building regulations may be doing the right thing, but according to property and construction professional Lawrence Agbenorku, the process of obtaining the necessary permits can leave applicants frustrated, confused and financially strained.
In a lengthy Facebook post, Agbenorku raised concerns about what he described as unclear charges, inadequate receipts and the lack of transparency surrounding the building permit process at some Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs).
He titled the post: “They Will Demolish You, But First They Will Bleed You.”
Agbenorku said he has consistently encouraged people planning to put up buildings to obtain the necessary permits before construction begins.
According to him, he has made the call repeatedly on television, radio and social media and has personally accompanied clients to Assembly offices to help them navigate the process.
However, he said his recent experiences with some clients have caused him to question whether the permit system is making it sufficiently easy for citizens to comply with the law.
‘Get your permit before you build’
Agbenorku maintained that his position on building permits has not changed.
He believes people should obtain the appropriate approvals before beginning construction because the permit system is intended to promote orderly development, public safety and compliance with planning regulations.
But he argued that government institutions must also make the process transparent and predictable if they expect citizens to comply.
According to him, applicants often know the cost of obtaining application forms but may struggle to understand the charges that follow.
He claimed that after paying for the forms, applicants can encounter fees that are not clearly itemised or adequately explained.
Concerns over GHS2,500 ‘processing and inspection fee’
Agbenorku cited the experience of one of his clients as an example.
He said the client, whom he described as someone committed to following the proper procedures, was asked to pay approximately GHS2,500 for what was described as a processing and inspection fee.
According to Agbenorku, the amount was presented as non-negotiable and was not sufficiently broken down into specific charges.
He further claimed that about 14 days later, the client received a receipt for only GHS300 from a planning officer.
This, he said, raises serious questions about financial accountability.
“GHS2,500 left the hand. GHS300 came back on paper. Where did the remaining GHS2,200 go? Who accounts for it?”
Agbenorku questioned how a homeowner would be able to prove the full amount paid if the person later needed documentation for purposes such as a mortgage, legal dispute or personal financial records.
He argued that citizens who voluntarily enter the formal system should not be left with inadequate documentation for payments they have made.
EPA and Fire Service costs
The concerns, according to Agbenorku, extend beyond the Assembly.
He said homeowners may also have to deal with permitting and inspection requirements involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ghana National Fire Service.
According to his account, these processes can add close to GHS4,000 to a homeowner’s expenses.
Agbenorku questioned whether the fees charged for inspections and related processes are adequately explained to applicants.
He said homeowners deserve to know exactly what they are paying for and should receive proper documentation for every payment made.
The permit fee comes later
Agbenorku also drew attention to what he described as a distinction between the costs associated with processing an application and the actual building permit fee.
According to him, expenses may already have accumulated through geotechnical investigations, Assembly processing, EPA requirements and Fire Service requirements before the applicant eventually reaches the stage of paying the actual permit fee.
He claimed that the final permit fee can sometimes be several times the combined amount already spent during the earlier stages.
For an ordinary homeowner, he argued, the total cost can become significant before construction has even properly begun.
Geotechnical investigations add to the cost
For some construction projects, geotechnical investigations may also be required to determine the suitability and characteristics of the ground.
Agbenorku said he has encouraged clients to undertake such investigations because building on untested ground can create serious structural risks.
While acknowledging the importance of proper technical assessments, he said the cumulative financial burden on property owners can become substantial when all the different requirements are considered together.
‘Why not just build first?’
Agbenorku anticipated an argument frequently made by frustrated property owners: if obtaining permits is expensive and complicated, why not simply build first and deal with the authorities later?
He rejected that approach.
According to him, he has clients who started construction before seeking the necessary approvals and are now dealing with penalties and possible legal action.
He said he is currently assisting some such clients in attempts to avoid court proceedings.
His message was therefore not an encouragement to bypass the system.
Instead, he argued that both compliance and enforcement must work fairly.
Compliance should not feel like punishment
The central concern in Agbenorku’s argument is not that government should stop enforcing building regulations.
Rather, he believes enforcement should be accompanied by transparency.
He questioned the situation in which someone who attempts to comply with the law encounters unclear charges and inadequate receipts, while someone who builds without approval eventually faces penalties, stop-work orders or possible demolition.
In his view, neither situation should be normal.
“Follow due process, and you meet unclear fees and thin receipts. Skip due process, and you meet penalties and court.”
He argued that this could unintentionally discourage people from entering the formal permitting system.
If property owners believe obtaining permits is unpredictable, expensive or dependent on unofficial processes, some may be tempted to construct first and worry about approval later.
The power to demolish
Agbenorku’s strongest concern relates to the enforcement powers of planning and regulatory authorities.
He acknowledged that government must have the authority to stop illegal construction and, where necessary, demolish structures that violate regulations.
However, he questioned what happens when institutions with significant enforcement powers are also responsible for collecting fees that applicants claim are not always clearly explained.
He warned that the system could create the perception that obtaining a permit is less like accessing a public service and more like passing through a toll gate where the amount demanded is difficult for an applicant to predict.
A call for transparency
Agbenorku’s post ultimately calls for greater transparency and accountability rather than an end to building regulations.
He said he still believes strongly in obtaining permits and continues to advise property owners to follow the proper procedures before beginning construction.
His concern is that the system must make compliance practical.
For citizens, that could mean clearly published fees, itemised charges, official receipts for every payment, predictable timelines and a transparent explanation of the different stages involved in obtaining approval.
Such measures, if properly implemented, could make it easier for property owners to understand their obligations and reduce suspicion around the process.
What happens next?
Agbenorku ended his post by asking people who have gone through the process to share their experiences.
He specifically asked property owners to disclose what they paid for geotechnical investigations, Assembly processing, EPA and Fire Service requirements, as well as the final building permit.
He also invited people who have faced penalties after constructing without permits to explain their experiences.
He urged people to identify the Assemblies involved so that the extent of the problem, if any, can be better understood.
For now, the allegations and experiences shared by Agbenorku are his own account and would require responses from the relevant Assemblies and regulatory institutions before they can be treated as established facts.
But the questions he raises are important: How much does it really cost to obtain a building permit in Ghana? Are all fees properly published and receipted? How long should the process take? And does the current system encourage citizens to comply or push some towards avoiding the process altogether?
For a country seeking orderly urban development, those questions deserve clear answers.
