Ghana’s tech community has been in an uproar this week. Developers, engineers, and founders are reacting to a bill that proposes sweeping changes to how the country’s ICT sector is regulated. The conversation has been loud, emotional, and in some cases, based on incomplete information. We read the bill. Here is what it actually says.
This Is Still a Draft
Before anything else, this needs to be said clearly.
The National Information Technology Authority Bill, 2025 is not yet law. It is a draft bill that went through public consultation between October and November 2025, with submissions closing on November 14, 2025. The process requires the bill to be finalised, submitted to the Minister responsible for Communication, Digital Technology and Innovations, forwarded to Cabinet, and then presented to Parliament before it can be passed and assented to by the President.
As of the time of this article, the NITA Bill has not been passed by Parliament. It has not received Presidential assent.
That matters. It means the conversation happening right now is not just noise. It is the conversation that should be happening, while there is still time to shape what the bill becomes.
What the Bill Is Replacing
NITA is not a new institution.
The National Information Technology Agency has existed since 2008 under the National Information Technology Agency Act, 2008 (Act 771). This bill proposes to transition it from an Agency to an Authority, under the same acronym, with an expanded mandate and significantly increased regulatory and enforcement powers.
Section 103(1) of the bill confirms that all rights, assets, and liabilities of the existing Agency transfer directly to the new Authority. Section 104(1) repeals Act 771.
The core change is not the name. It is the scope.
The Clause Causing the Reaction
Section 46 of the bill is the specific provision that sparked the current conversation. It reads, in full:
(1) A person shall not be appointed as an ICT professional in a public or private institution unless that person is certified by the Authority.
(2) The Authority shall determine the criteria and procedure for the certification of ICT professionals.
Two things stand out in this clause.
First, the requirement applies to both public and private institutions. The bill does not limit the certification requirement to government roles or public sector appointments. Every private company, startup, bank, hospital, or organisation that hires a tech professional would be subject to this requirement.
Second, the criteria for certification do not exist yet. Section 46(2) delegates the power to define what qualifies someone for certification entirely to NITA, after the bill becomes law. The requirement is written into the draft. The rules for meeting that requirement are not.
This is what DzamefeSheena captured when she wrote, “How do we know what we’re expected to do when they don’t tell us?”
That is not a rhetorical question. It is a direct observation about what the bill contains.
The Licensing Framework
Beyond certification, the bill proposes a licensing requirement for anyone operating a business in the ICT sector.
Section 35(1) states that a person cannot engage in a business or related activity in the ICT sector without a licence from NITA. Section 36 outlines the categories of licences the Authority may issue, including a Public/Commercial ICT Infrastructure Licence, Cloud Hosting Service Licence, Software as a Service (SaaS) Provider Licence, and others.
Section 37 defines who can apply for a licence:
“A person qualifies to apply for a licence under this Act if that person is (a) a citizen of eighteen years or above; or (b) a company, a partnership, an association or other body, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which is wholly owned by a citizen.”
The bill as drafted does not include a provision for non-citizens or companies that are not wholly owned by Ghanaian citizens to obtain a licence.
The Penalties
The bill sets out penalties for non-compliance.
Section 90(1) sets a separate penalty for providing ICT services without a valid licence, or for falsely claiming to be a certified ICT professional: a fine of between 1,000 and 2,000 penalty units, or up to two years imprisonment, or both.
The Workarounds Being Discussed
The reaction on X has not been limited to anger. Some in the community are already mapping out practical responses.
One suggestion: operate as a freelancer rather than an employee. The bill uses the word “appointed” in section 46. It does not define how that language applies to freelancers or independent contractors. That gap in the drafting is either an unintentional ambiguity or a question that will be resolved in subsequent regulations.
Another suggestion: avoid local incorporation and hire on a freelance basis. This runs into section 37, which restricts licences to citizens and wholly citizen-owned entities, and section 35, which requires a licence to engage in ICT business activity. The workarounds being discussed publicly deserve closer legal scrutiny before anyone acts on them.
What Is Also in the Bill
The bill is not exclusively restrictive. Several provisions are worth noting.
Section 60 establishes a Regulatory Sandbox Framework, allowing innovators to test new ICT products and services in a controlled environment with temporary regulatory relief.
Section 61 requires NITA to exercise its regulatory functions using a risk-based and principles-oriented approach, with measures proportionate to actual risk rather than uniform enforcement across all entities.
Section 65 requires a comprehensive review of all regulatory instruments at least once every five years, with public consultations and a published Regulatory Impact Assessment Report following each review.
Section 59 includes a mandate for NITA to implement programmes for the training and professional development of ICT officers, and to promote partnerships with technology firms, startups, and academia to support indigenous ICT innovation.
Section 5(e) states that in performing its functions, NITA shall have regard to the promotion of inclusive competition and local innovation, including incentives for Ghanaian technology firms and startups.
What the Bill Does Not Define
Several critical details are absent from the draft as presented.
The specific criteria for certifying an ICT professional are not defined. Section 46(2) leaves this entirely to NITA to determine after the bill comes into force.
The fee structure for licences and certifications is not specified in the bill. It is to be prescribed by Regulations made under Section 101.
The threshold for what constitutes a “major ICT project” requiring technical clearance from NITA is not defined. Section 52(3) states the Authority may issue guidelines to define this.
The scope of who counts as an “ICT professional” for certification purposes is not narrowly defined. The bill’s definition of ICT is broad, covering digital hardware and software systems, information systems and digital applications, data centres and cloud infrastructure, and digital innovation platforms.
What Happens If You Already Have a Licence
For anyone currently operating under a licence or certificate issued under the existing law, Section 103(4) provides a transition period. Existing licences remain valid for six months after the bill comes into force. After that period, affected parties may apply to NITA for a new licence under the new Act, per Section 103(5).
Why This Conversation Matters Now
The bill is still a draft. The public consultation window has closed, but the bill has not yet completed its journey through Cabinet and Parliament. That process includes opportunities for amendment.
The concerns being raised publicly, including about the scope of Section 46, the undefined certification criteria, the citizenship-only licensing restriction, and the absence of a clear framework for how these provisions apply to freelancers and independent contractors, are precisely the concerns that should be part of the formal submission and review process.
Ghana’s tech ecosystem has the knowledge, the voice, and the moment to shape what this bill becomes before it is law.
The thread we posted this week was not an attempt to stoke panic. It was an attempt to put the actual text in front of the people it affects, so the conversation is grounded in what the bill says rather than what people fear it says.
Read the bill. Submit your comments. Stay in the conversation.
