A Communications Member of the New Patriotic Party and energy expert, Kwadwo Poku, has argued that the party supports reforms to Ghana’s cocoa sector while seeking greater clarity in the proposed Cocoa Bill. He explained that the NPP’s position centres on consultation and the wording of provisions that directly affect cocoa farmers.
Mr Poku argued that the legislation should have been involved in extensive engagement with farmers and organised groups within the cocoa industry before its passage. He pointed out that the Best Farmers Association and other sector associations, in his assessment, were not adequately consulted during the process.
The energy expert therefore urged Parliament and relevant authorities to examine the bill carefully because its provisions could influence the livelihoods of cocoa farmers for years. He indicated that the urgency attached to the legislation made detailed consultation even more important.
A major issue raised by the NPP communicator involved the 70 percent pricing provision for cocoa producers. He drew attention to the difference between the prevailing world market price and the gross free on board price realised by the Ghana Cocoa Board during a crop season.
Mr Poku referenced remarks attributed to President John Mahama in which cocoa farmers were promised at least 70 percent of the prevailing world market price. He argued that the wording contained in the legislation carries a different formulation and therefore requires careful scrutiny.
“The text is very important. What Cocoa Board realises is different from the world market price. The cocoa farmer needs transparency.”
Kwadwo Poku
According to him, the distinction could influence how farmers understand the price they eventually receive. He explained that a price realised by Cocoa Board could depend on contracts entered into during a crop season while the prevailing world market price represents a different reference point.
Referencing the President’s July 17 communication, Mr Poku recalled the use of the phrase “prevailing world market price”. He argued that such wording should correspond clearly with the legal provision if farmers are to understand the basis upon which producer prices will be calculated.
The debate therefore extends the percentage itself to the language used in the legislation. From his perspective, clear drafting would help prevent different interpretations when the provision is implemented.
Mr Poku further linked the issue to the wider question of accountability in the cocoa sector. He argued that farmers require straightforward information on how international prices translate into producer prices at home.
Analysing the provision, he added that the distinction between the price promised publicly and the price specified legally could create uncertainty for farmers. He consequently called for the relevant wording to receive careful consideration before the legislation becomes operational.
The NPP communicator stressed that his criticism should not be interpreted as opposition to reform within the cocoa industry. Instead, he presented the party’s position as a demand for consultation, transparency and precise language in a law that could shape the sector for years.
Cocoa Bill Sparks Debate Over Farm Registration And Penalties
A separate part of the debate centres on the proposed system for registering cocoa farms and the penalties attached to compliance. Mr Poku argued that the proposed arrangement could place responsibility on farmers for an administrative process controlled by Cocoa Board.
He explained that Cocoa Board would oversee the registration of farms through cocoa officers who collect information and geo locate farms. The farmer, in his view, does not control the registration process despite facing potential penalties when a farm remains unregistered.
The Communications Member therefore questioned the fairness of assigning a penalty to a farmer when the administrative responsibility rests with another institution. He argued that responsibility and accountability should correspond within the legal framework.
“You cannot have one person doing an action and then visit the penalty of the inaction on the cocoa farmer.”
Kwadwo Poku
The registration debate has consequently raised questions about how the proposed law would operate at farm level. Mr Poku explained that cocoa officers play a central role in collecting information required for the database, making the process dependent on institutional action.
Beyond registration, the discussion moved into the issue of farm inputs and the extent of government support available to cocoa producers. Mr Poku challenged claims about widespread subsidies by drawing on his own experience as a cocoa farmer.
He explained that farmers often purchase fertiliser, labour and other materials using their own resources. Some spraying activities, he acknowledged, are supported through Cocoa Board programmes, while several other inputs are purchased directly by farmers.
The energy expert also pointed to chemicals used to control capsid pests as an example of products that farmers purchase themselves. He argued that the distinction between specific government supported interventions and farmers’ direct expenditure should form part of any discussion about support for cocoa producers.
The proposed restrictions on activities within cocoa farms also emerged as another issue. Mr Poku raised questions about provisions that could require farmers to obtain prior approval before cutting trees on their farms.
According to him, criminal penalties attached to such provisions could significantly affect farmers who depend on their land for their livelihoods. He therefore called for careful consideration of how such requirements would work in practice at the farm level.
READ ALSO: Government to Recover Outstanding Adamus Taxes And Royalties
