Numo Blafo, Public Relations Officer of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), has dismissed claims that shop owners in the country are expected to pay GHC 2,131 permit fee for their signage structures.
The traders claim that shop owners who have their name(s) displayed on their shops are obliged to pay the stipulated fee.
Peace FM's Reporter Naana Ntiri indicated that the shop owners in the area have expressed their dissatisfaction with the new fee citing the nationwide energy challenges have slowed down their businesses, hence making it difficult for them to pay the amount.
Reporting from Accra Central, Naana Ntiri added that the traders also held strongly that the fee was inappropriate.
She further read a copy of the letter from the traders which contained details on the new fee and stated that the letter was specifically addressed to the traders with the letter head of the AMA.
The letter had a reference number of A 01515145 and an email address customersupport@amaau.com dated January 2, 2015.
It also had on it AMA logo with a telephone number and a National Investment Bank Account (Accra Main Branch) 100-0100704401 for the shop owners to pay the monies into it.
“The Accra Metropolitan Assembly Signage and Advertisement Unit in accordance with the local government Act 1993 Act 462 section 64 wish to inform you that you are obligated to pay a yearly permit or renewal permit fee for your renewal signage structure as prescribed in AMA’s annual fee fixing resolution 2015.
“You are by this notice requested to renew your permit by paying the required fees within 30 days of your receipt of this notice in order to retain your signage”, the letter read, further adding that any signage structure which defaults in the payment of the fee will have it removed by the AMA.
However, speaking in an interview with host Kwami Sefa Kayi on Peace FM's Kokrokoo, Numo Blafo stated emphatically that the AMA has not issued any letter nor authorized any persons to demand such payment.
He added that his outfit has begun investigations into the source of the letter but held strongly that the letter is not authentic. |
| |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment