The Executive Secretary of the Chamber of Petroleum Consumers (COPEC), Duncan Amoah, has criticised what he describes as the unfair treatment of Star Oil Limited after the company called for fuel price reductions during peak periods.
He said the situation has brought to light fundamental flaws in Ghana’s petroleum pricing framework.
Speaking in an interview, Mr. Amoah explained that the controversy surrounding Star Oil reflects long-standing concerns about the petroleum price floor, a policy he has consistently opposed.
According to him, if any form of price control was necessary, it would have been more appropriate to introduce a price ceiling rather than a price floor.
“We never needed a price floor. If there had to be any intervention at all, it should have been a price ceiling to deal with those charging excessively,” he said.
“When you compare prices across oil marketing companies, the difference between the cheapest and the most expensive can be more than one Ghana cedi. Is the regulator suggesting that those charging significantly higher prices are right, while those proposing lower prices to benefit Ghanaians are the problem?”
Mr Amoah stressed that Star Oil’s position was neither novel nor isolated, noting that COPEC had raised similar concerns as far back as 2024, when the price floor was first introduced.
He described the backlash against the company as unjust and harmful to its corporate image.
“In my view, Star Oil is being victimised for holding a position we clearly articulated from the very beginning of this price floor policy. The discussion around their position has not been fair to their brand,” he added.
His remarks come in the wake of Star Oil Limited’s decision to suspend its membership of the Chamber of Oil Marketing Companies (COMAC) with immediate effect.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, January 21, Star Oil said it was dissatisfied with what it termed COMAC’s failure to fairly represent or adequately explain its position on abolishing the price floor, particularly during recent media engagements by the Chamber’s leadership.
The company argued that the lack of balanced communication had fuelled negative public perceptions, wrongly portraying its advocacy as being driven by anti-competitive or improper motives.
