The West African Regional Director of CUTS International, Appiah Kusi Adomako, has proposed that proceeds from the Communications Service Tax (CST) be used to sustainably fund the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC).
GBC has once again become a subject of social media ridicule after its inability to telecast Ghana’s recent World Cup qualifying matches. While many blamed the government, others cited funding and administrative challenges.
But the policy and consumer advocate adds that the issues include funding, since the current mode of support is uncompetitive and woefully inadequate.
He suggested that a portion of the Communications Service Tax (CST), instead of the TV licence, could revive the state broadcaster to carry out its constitutional mandate if channelled properly.
The competition economist believes that if the government truly wants GBC to fulfil its public service role without crippling competition in the media space, then it must rethink how it is funded.
The TV licence model, over the years, has proven to be ineffective as patronage has been low, including public uproar against the regime. Mr Adomako argues that collecting such fees in a digital age is inefficient and unpopular, adding that besides, the administrative cost of collecting TV licence fees ends up outweighing the actual revenue.
A Smarter Alternative: Use Part of the CST
The Communications Service Tax, popularly known as the “talk tax,” is charged on calls, text messages, and data services. Each time a Ghanaian makes a phone call or uses mobile internet, a small portion goes to the government’s coffers.
He believes that a fraction of this existing revenue stream can be dedicated to funding GBC’s public service obligations, which are programmes that educate, promote national unity, and reflect Ghana’s linguistic and cultural diversity.
Under his proposal, GBC could receive direct but transparent allocations from the CST to support specific activities such as producing educational programmes and civic awareness campaigns, broadcasting national and cultural events that private media may not prioritise, and airing content in Ghana’s indigenous languages like Ewe, Dagbani, Nzema, and Dagaare.
It could also include the purchase of broadcasting rights to air national team matches.
This approach, he explains, would provide a reliable source of funding while sparing citizens from new or unpopular levies.
“Perhaps, government can find some funds from the Communications Service Taxes (CST) to give to GBC. We should stay away from anything that can distort competition in the TV market. Again, the state broadcaster must be assisted to perform its public broadcaster’s mandate,” he proposed.
Balancing Public Service and Market Fairness
Appiah Kusi Adomako clarifies that this is not about making GBC dominant again but about giving it the resources to perform its national duties without competing unfairly. Private stations, he notes, will continue to thrive on entertainment and advertising, while GBC focuses on education, culture, and civic responsibility.
He further emphasises that supporting GBC should not mean returning to monopoly days. He maintains that the support should mean empowering the national broadcaster to complement the private sector and strengthen Ghana’s democracy.
This recommendation to use a share of the Communications Service Tax to fund GBC could breathe new life into the struggling state broadcaster. However, it would require firm political commitment, transparency, and a clear definition of GBC’s public service role.
