In Ghana, the right to access official information held by public institutions is not a privilege or a product for sale. It is a fundamental human right guaranteed under Article 21(1)(f) of the 1992 Constitution and operationalised by the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2019 (Act 989). The law is fluorescently clear: access to information is free, and institutions may only recover the cost of reproduction – capped at 38 pesewas per A4 page under the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2022 (Act 1080).Yet, rogue institutions continue to weaponise illegal fees against transparency. The Electoral Commission is demanding GH¢9,250 from a journalist for copies of political parties’ audited accounts, citing the Political Parties Act, which prescribes no such charges. The Office of the Registrar of Companies is imposing search fees even when requests were made under the RTI Act. And most egregiously, the Ghana Meteorological Agency is asking applicants to pay over GH¢10,400 for rainfall and weather data. These demands are not just unlawful; they amount to extortion that undermines constitutional rights.Our courts have already upheld the overriding application of the RTI Act in processing requests for information, and I have joined civil society to invest in education and sensitisation. Yet the illegality persists. This is no longer a matter of ignorance, it is deliberate defiance. It must stop. Parliament, the Executive, and oversight bodies must act decisively to exact sanctions and enforcement to protect the RTI regime and restore public trust in governance.Proactive vs. Reactive Disclosure: The State’s Primary DutyA critical, often ignored pillar of the law is that public bodies are under a strict constitutional and statutory obligation to practice proactive disclosure. State institutions are legally required to compile, update, and publish information. They must provide comprehensive manuals detailing their operations, budgets, contracts, and decision-making processes before a citizen even asks.Waiting for a citizen to submit a formal request to force a reactive disclosure of non-exempt information is a failure of public duty. Transparency must be the default operating system, not a reluctant concession.Information Requests Granted Without a ChargeUnder Section 75(2) of Act 989, fees are completely waived and information must be provided for free in the following circumstances:Public Interest: If the information requested is in the public interest (e.g., tracking the use of public funds or assessing regulatory compliance).Personal Information: The reproduction of personal records requested by the individual concerned.Statutory Timelines: If the institution fails to provide the information within the stipulated time under the Act, they lose the right to charge any administrative fees.Indigency and Disability: If the applicant is a person with a disability or satisfies the criteria of being poor (indigent).Where fees are permissible, they are strictly limited to the actual cost of media conversion or reproduction (such as photocopies or printing costs) and must conform entirely to the standard fee benchmarks approved by Parliament under the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. For instance, providing information electronically via email cannot be used as an excuse to extort applicants.The Supremacy of Act 989: Overriding Institutional LegislationThe dangerous bureaucratic narrative where state bodies erroneously relied on their specific parent legislations or internal regulations to charge astronomical fees must stop. That is illegal!The legal mechanism that completely dismantles this practice is found across Sections 75, 80, and 85 of Act 989, which cement the absolute supremacy of the RTI Act regarding public access to information.The Statutory ShieldSection 75 explicitly mandates that only fees and charges approved by Parliament specifically for the purposes of the RTI Act can be charged for the reproduction of records.Section 80 asserts the temporal jurisdiction of the Act, establishing that Act 989 applies universally to all official information, whether created before or after the passage of the Act.Section 85 serves as the definitive supremacy clause. It explicitly states that where an enactment in existence immediately before the coming into force of the RTI Act provides for the disclosure of information, that disclosure is entirely subject to Act 989.The Legal Reality: Section 85 means that the RTI Act functions as an absolute override. Any preexisting institutional law, internal regulation, or Legislative Instrument (L.I.) that purports to govern information disclosure or its cost is automatically subject to, and overridden by, Act 989.The Rule of Specialibus Non DerogantLet’s explain, Section 85 conforms to the Latin maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Thisis a canon of statutory interpretation. It means that special provisions prevail over general ones. It is to avoid the conflict of laws. So that where two laws conflict, the more specific enactment governs the subject matter, while the general law yields. Courts use this to harmonize statutes and avoid implied repeal unless Parliament clearly intended it.Decrying Institutional DefianceDespite the clarity of the law, several public institutions have engaged in a pattern of clear defiance, attempting to weaponize financial barriers to block transparency.The Minerals Commission (MinCom)In 2021, the Minerals Commission shamelessly demanded the Cedi equivalent of $1,000 (approx. GHS 6,000 at the time) from the investigative journalism outlet The Fourth Estate for a list of companies licensed to mine in Ghana. MinCom erroneously cited its parent regulations under Act 703. The RTI Commission rightly stepped in, declared the fee illegal, and slashed it to pennies. The Accra High Court subsequently dismissed MinCom’s appeal, explicitly affirming that institutional registries are fully subject to the RTI Act’s reasonable fees.The National Communications Authority (NCA)The NCA similarly attempted to stonewall the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) by demanding GHS 2,000 to release information on the closure of certain radio stations. In a warped defense, the NCA claimed the applicant was turning it into a “research unit.” While the High Court at the time arbitrarily reduced this to GHS 1,500 due to a temporary legal vacuum before Parliament finalized the standardized fees, the subsequent passage of the Fees and Charges Act formally outlawed such arbitrary state-sponsored extortion.The Electoral Commission (EC)Perhaps the most egregious offender remains the Electoral Commission. The EC routinely attempts to retreat into its parent constitutional provisions and electoral legislations to demand separate, exorbitant fees or flatly deny requests under the guise that “RTI fees have not been finalized.” This conduct is a total subversion of democratic accountability. The EC cannot treat itself as an island entirely detached from the laws of the land. Resorting to legacy institutional legislations to bypass Act 989 is a clear violation of the law.The Right to Information Commission (RTIC) and the courts have already punished these and other institutions with fines for their illegal conduct. Yet it is disheartening to learn this morning that the Electoral Commission is repeating its sin by unlawfully demanding GHS9,250 for an RTI request covering audited accounts of political parties in its custody. The Office of the Registrar of Companies continues to impose search fees on RTI applicants, and the Ghana Meteorological Agency has gone further still, seeking over GHS10,400 for rainfall and weather data. These extortionate demands are not only unlawful; they are deliberate acts of defiance against constitutional guarantees of transparency.A Call for Executive Action and Personal AccountabilityThe persistence of this unlawful institutional pushback reveals a glaring lack of political will from the executive arm of government. Public officials cannot champion transparency on political platforms while their appointed heads of agencies mock the law in practice.This is a battle fought from the very trenches of civil society. I was not only a face of the coalition, but I joined dedicated advocates like the late Akoto Ampaw and Zakaria Tanko Musah and together we crisscrossed this nation to educate public officials on how to process requests and fight for the realization of this law.The consistent warnings delivered across various media interviews and my Samson’s Take series got compliance elevated to KPIs for MMDAs. I believe the proposals must culminate in real, punitive executive action:The President, the Attorney General, the Minister for Government Communications, and the Communications Minister must break their silence, publicly denounce this unlawful conduct, and issue an explicit directive to all MMDAs to halt the use of institutional laws to charge illegal RTI fees.Personal Financial Liability for Rogue Officials: It is time to end the culture where public heads hide behind state coffers to fight illegal battles. Where the RTI Commission upholds an appeal against an institution for unlawfully denying a request or charging exorbitant fees, the heads of those institutions must be made to pay the resulting fines out of their own pockets.Name and Shame Roster: The RTIC, working in collaboration with the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA), should publish a quarterly “rogue institutions list” naming agencies and officials found guilty of illegal RTI practices. Public exposure will add reputational sanctions to financial penalties, ensuring that no institution can quietly defy the law without accountability.Taxpayer funds must never be used to finance institutional lawlessness and institutional ego. If heads of public bodies face personal bankruptcy for blocking transparency, compliance with Act 989 will be achieved overnight. Allowing state institutions to operate as rogue entities that price regular citizens out of their constitutional rights renders the RTI Act toothless. The government must move past mere rhetoric, enforce the supremacy of Act 989, and punish non-complying public heads personally.