The directive by the Bank of Ghana, as announced on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, that Mobile Money Fintech Limited (MMFL) pause the implementation of its decision to impose customers an 0.75 percent fee on their direct wallet-to-bank transfers (subject to a maximum fee of GH¢5 per transaction), has generated intense scrutiny in the country’s mobile money market that is currently valued at over GH¢4.1 trillion in annual transaction value.
Attention will now shift to ensuing discussions over pricing between the central bank as regulators of the industry and MMFL, the dedicated company used by MTN Ghana to provide its mobile money services where it holds a dominant market share of some 90 percent. While cross-network and wallet–to-bank transactions typically represent a small slice of total transactions, (about 1 percent – 1.5 percent of total monthly value) the volumes and values are rising.
But even more importantly, the discussions between MMFL and its regulators may set the foundation for the wider fee regime that the industry will operate with going forwards. The BoG’s swift response will serve as a warning to dedicated mobile money service providers as to setting fees without consulting their regulator. But the issue will go far deeper than that.
To be sure, the discussions now opening will be complex. The fee announced by MMFL immediately triggered strong public backlash because Ghanaians already complain about the cumulative cost of digital financial transactions, especially after the introduction – and subsequent abolition – of the E-Levy in recent years.
There are several reasons why the BoG would intervene.
First, the proposed fee risks undermining financial inclusion. Ghana has spent more than a decade encouraging people — especially the unbanked and under-banked — to adopt mobile money and digital payments. Imposing an additional charge could discourage usage and push people back toward cash transactions running contrary to the BoG’s digitalization agenda.
Indeed, the fee could reduce interoperability growth.as higher transaction costs could reduce transaction volumes and slow integration between banks and fintech platforms.
There are consumer protection concerns too. Many customers viewed the fee as excessive because users already pay transfer charges on many mobile money transactions. Introducing another layer of fees on wallet-to-bank transfers could be interpreted as double charging.
Then there is political and macroeconomic sensitivity. Digital transaction costs are highly visible to the public. The backlash against the E-Levy demonstrated how politically sensitive electronic transaction charges can become in Ghana. Even though the MMFL fee is commercial rather than tax-related, many users perceived it similarly. The BoG probably wanted to avoid a broader loss of confidence in digital finance adoption.
Conversely though, MMFL has a strong commercial case for its decision to introduce the fee, revolving around cost recovery and revenue generation.
Wallet-to-bank transfers involve multiple institutions and infrastructure systems, including the mobile money operator, partner banks, inter-operability platforms, settlement systems and cyber-security and fraud management infrastructure. As transaction volumes grow, the operational and infrastructure costs of maintaining fast, secure and reliable transfers also rise. MMFL believes that the current fee structure does not adequately compensate for these costs.
The company also sees wallet-to-bank transfers as a premium service because they connect two different financial ecosystems — telecom-based mobile wallets and regulated bank accounts. It is instructive in this regard that many fintechs globally charge more for transfers into bank accounts than for wallet-to-wallet transfers.
Another reason may be margin pressure. Mobile money profitability is increasingly under pressure from rising cyber-security costs, regulatory compliance requirements, interoperability investments, anti-money laundering controls and competition which limits traditional transaction charges.
MMFL may therefore be seeking a new revenue stream to sustain operations and future investment in digital financial services.
Considering the complexity of the dynamics underpinning the situation it is unlikely that the BoG will simply insist that the proposed transaction fee be scrapped outright. Indeed it has several alternative courses of action.
The most likely outcome of the impending negotiations is that the central bank will approve the fee in a modified form that balances commercial sustainability with consumer protection. For instance, the BoG could: require a lower percentage charge; impose a lower cap; exempt small-value transactions; allow the fee only above certain thresholds; or phase it in gradually.
A third option is differentiated pricing. The BoG could permit charges only for certain categories of transfers, such as high-value corporate transactions, while protecting low-income retail users.
But even going with any of these three options could just be a stop gap measure ahead of deeper, further-reaching regulatory reform.
The BoG may use this controversy as an opportunity to review the entire pricing framework for Ghana’s digital payments ecosystem, including interoperability fees and bank-mobile money settlement charges. Or it could encourage alternative revenue models. For instance, instead of charging consumers directly, regulators could encourage MMFL and its competitor institutions to recover their rising costs through merchant service charges, institutional settlement fees, premium enterprise services or value-added digital financial products.
The suspension therefore reflects the BoG’s attempt to balance two competing objectives: ensuring the commercial viability of Ghana’s rapidly expanding digital finance ecosystem while also protecting consumers and preserving momentum toward a cash-lite, financially inclusive economy. The negotiations and final agreement on the way forward will have to reflect that balance too.
By: Toma Imirhe / businesspostonline
