The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is calling for parliamentary scrutiny of the recent move to extend Tullow Oil’s petroleum licences beyond their current expiration date.

According to the IEA, any extension of oil licences, particularly the West Cape Three Points and Deepwater Tano blocks must go through Parliament as required by law.

The licences are due to expire in 2036 but under a memorandum of understanding, the government, and Tullow Oil have agreed to extend operations until 2040.

Barrister and Solicitor Victor Anku-Tsede, speaking at an IEA roundtable, warned that this extension may alter the original agreement in a way that requires fresh approval under Ghana’s Constitution citing amongst others the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in the case of Banful and Another v. Attorney General, where the court held that even an informal agreement referred to as a “note verbal” between Ghana and the U.S. required ratification.

“On this point, let me also draw our attention to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Banful and Another v. Attorney General and Another [2017] GHASC 21, delivered on 22nd June 2017. In that case, the government had argued that there was no formal agreement or treaty between Ghana and the United States, only what it described as a note verbal. Yet, the Court held decisively that even such an instrument, despite its informal title, constituted an international agreement and therefore required ratification by Parliament.

“In that spirit, we must understand that the nomenclature of an agreement, whether called an MoU, an addendum, or an understanding, does not remove its legal character. If, in substance, it extends the terms of a license already ratified by Parliament, then it too must be brought before this House. I think it’s important to be clear on this point. Parliament originally gave its approval for the license with a timeline that runs until 2036. So, in my opinion, any extension beyond that date isn’t just an administrative step; it’s a legal matter that requires fresh validation by Parliament.

“This isn’t about formality for its own sake; it goes to the heart of constitutional oversight. Our legal framework is built on the principle that the people’s representatives must have the opportunity to examine and, if necessary, improve the terms under which national resources are managed. Without that scrutiny, we risk sidelining the very accountability the Constitution demands,” he contended.