GCB's Unjustified E-Banking Fees: A Call for Action Against Exploitative Practices

GCB Bank’s recent announcement of new e-banking charges effective May 1, 2025, is both troubling and unacceptable. The changes include a GHS 15 monthly E-Bundle fee, a 1 percent fee on mobile bank to wallet transfers capped at GHS 20, and a GHS 20 ATM usage charge after an initial GHS 10,000 withdrawal. These represent a disturbing shift in how the bank treats its customers.

These charges, especially when applied retroactively to long-time customers, amount to a unilateral variation of contract terms. Under contract law, such changes require the express consent of all parties. Courts have consistently held in cases such as Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd that unusual or burdensome terms must be clearly communicated and agreed to before they can be enforced. Customers never agreed to these new conditions when they initially signed up for GCB’s services, making this change a breach of contract in substance if not in name.

The Consumer Protection Act 2012 (Act 829) provides further clarity on this issue. Section 5 affirms the consumer’s right to fair equitable and transparent dealings. It is difficult to see how charging GHS 15 per month for SMS alerts, a service that costs mere pesewas to provide, can be considered fair or transparent. For many customers, especially those who receive few or no alerts in a given month, the charge borders on extortion. It also raises serious concerns under Section 47 of the same Act which prohibits terms that are excessive one sided or unjust.

The new GHS 20 ATM fee undermines the very purpose of self service banking. ATMs were introduced to ease congestion in banking halls and offer convenience to customers. Now GCB seeks to charge customers for the very act of using a service designed to benefit both bank and client. This charge is not only financially unjustifiable; it is morally questionable. In earlier transactions, customers were not told they would eventually be punished for using their ATM cards. This is a clear case of bait and switch, where a service is offered under one condition and later changed to the detriment of the user.

In a competitive market, such behavior might be restrained by consumer choice. But GCB’s dominance, particularly in certain regions and public sector salary arrangements, limits mobility for many clients. This creates an imbalance of power that may amount to economic coercion. It is this abuse of dominant market position that regulatory bodies such as the Bank of Ghana must be prepared to investigate. The conduct may also be challenged under legal doctrines relating to unconscionable bargains and lack of consideration.

GCB must be reminded that it is not above the law. The bank’s obligations go beyond profit making. It owes a duty of care to its customers, a duty to act fairly, and a duty to honour the trust placed in it by Ghanaians. When banks begin to profit not by serving customers but by charging them for access to their own money, we must raise the alarm.

Customers have every right to demand that these charges be reversed. They have the right to file complaints with the Bank of Ghana, seek redress through the Financial Ombudsman, or even pursue a class action. More importantly, they have the right to speak out and act collectively.

The time has come to push back. Silence would be interpreted as consent. If GCB cannot be trusted to act in the interest of its customers, then it must be reminded through lawful protest, public pressure, and legal means that the banking license is not a tool for economic oppression. It is a public trust and when that trust is abused, the public must respond with strength, unity and resolve.