About six weeks ago, the Civil Unions and Transparency Society (CUTS) raised concerns over the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority’s (DVLA) policy of levying delinquency charges on late renewal and replacement of driver’s licences. Their position is that merely holding an expired licence does not, in itself, constitute a crime; it only becomes an offence when one drives with an expired licence, as set out in Regulation 46(8) of the Road Traffic Regulations 2026 (L.I. 2519).
Last week the DVLA issued a release titled “Clarification on Delinquency Charges on Failed Renewal of Driver’s Licence.” In its third paragraph it stated, “For the avoidance of doubt, the responsibility for holding a driver’s licence is to ensure that the licence is active at all times. At no point should a driver’s licence be allowed to expire.” The statement, critics say, ignores situations where a person cannot renew on time or has no reason to drive. Expired professional licences—pharmacists, doctors, lawyers—do not automatically imply that the holder was practising.
One of the cases highlighted involved a Kumasi applicant who, after a year abroad, applied in 2022 for a renewal. The DVLA issued a temporary licence that the applicant had to return repeatedly for extensions while awaiting the permanent card. More than four years after the original application, the card was finally ready, but the applicant was told a delinquency charge was due. The officer claimed the system would not release the card without payment, forcing the applicant to pay reluctantly. The applicant now seeks a refund and an explanation for the four‑year delay.
None of these examples excuse driving without a valid licence. A returning driver must renew and meet the applicable health and licensing requirements before using the road. The examples illustrate why expiry alone is a poor measure of road use, fault or risk. Regulation 46(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations allows a licence to be renewed within one month before it expires, and the use of “may” does not make it mandatory to renew before expiry. The DVLA’s claim that a licence should never be allowed to expire is therefore not supported by law.
Regulation 46(8) of L.I. 2519 makes failure to renew as prescribed an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of five to twenty‑five penalty units, imprisonment for up to thirty days, or both. The term “delinquency” does not appear in L.I. 2519; it is found in the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (L.I. 2512). This creates a potential conflict of laws, as the same conduct is labelled an offence in one statute and subject to a separate fee in another. A person convicted and sentenced for failing to renew could face an additional delinquency charge upon renewal, raising concerns of double jeopardy.
CUTS calls on Parliament to review how DVLA applies L.I. 2512 alongside L.I. 2519. They urge Parliament to require DVLA to publish the authority for every charge, explain the treatment of people with good cause for late renewal, and provide a means to contest an incorrect assessment. DVLA cannot claim that fees are system‑generated and immutable; a fair system should help people return to lawful driving, not assume that everyone whose licence expired continued to drive.
What follows is a parliamentary debate scheduled for the coming month, where lawmakers will examine the legal framework governing licence renewal and the legitimacy of delinquency charges. Stakeholders, including professional bodies and civil society groups, are expected to present their case and seek reforms that protect drivers’ rights while maintaining road safety.
