On May 1, 2025, GCB Bank Plc (GCB Bank), the country’s largest and most influential universal bank, is scheduled to implement a revised set of digital banking charges.
The changes include a GHS 15 monthly E-Bundle fee for digital services (with an exemption for customers aged 60 and above), a 1% fee on Bank-to-Wallet transfers via mobile apps (capped at GHS 20), and a GHS 20 ATM fee for withdrawals exceeding GHS 10,000 monthly.
While the partial protection of senior citizens is a commendable gesture, the broader fee structure has sparked widespread concern about its potential to undermine Ghana’s hard-fought gains in digital financial inclusion.
These changes occur against a national backdrop where Ghana is pushing vigorously toward a 24-hour economy, supported by policies aiming to deepen financial inclusion, expand digital adoption, and create an equitable, innovation-driven financial ecosystem (Ministry of Finance, 2024).
Financial inclusion initiatives, such as the E-Levy removal in 2024 and the National Financial Inclusion and Development Strategy (NFIDS), have been pivotal in expanding access to digital banking services among previously underserved populations (Bank of Ghana, 2024).
However, GCB Bank’s decision appears to run counter to these efforts. By introducing significant new charges, especially in an environment still recovering from inflationary pressures and economic headwinds, GCB risks reintroducing financial barriers that could discourage digital participation.
More critically, it sets a precedent that other banks might follow, thereby widening the digital divide that government programs have painstakingly sought to bridge.
This article critically analyses GCB Bank’s fee structure, benchmarks it against peer banks, evaluates its broader implications for financial inclusion, and offers pragmatic, data-driven recommendations.
At this critical juncture, a recalibration is urgently needed to ensure that banking, particularly digital banking, remains a tool for empowerment, not a privilege for the few.
Comparative Benchmarking
To fairly assess the implications of GCB Bank’s newly introduced digital fees, it is crucial to situate them within the broader context of Ghana’s banking landscape.
A comparative review of peer banks’ digital service charges reveals notable disparities that cast GCB’s pricing decisions in a concerning light.
Table 1: Comparative Digital Charges Across Selected Banks in Ghana (April 2025)
Sources: Bank Tariff Guides (April 2025); Bank of Ghana Digital Finance Report (2025).
As the table illustrates, GCB Bank’s E-Bundle fee stands out as the highest fixed monthly digital charge among major banks, particularly at a time when most competitors are either offering free digital access or significantly lower fees.
Additionally, the 1% Bank-to-Wallet fee, although capped, is substantially higher than peers like Fidelity Bank (0.5%) and CalBank (0.3%), raising serious affordability concerns for low-income users.
In terms of ATM withdrawal charges, while many banks impose fees after reaching certain thresholds, GCB’s GHS 20 fee per transaction is again among the highest, second only to banks that target exclusively high-net-worth clientele, a category GCB traditionally does not cater to.
Notably, only GCB Bank has introduced a senior citizen exemption, a progressive step deserving of praise but insufficient to counterbalance the broader affordability issues faced by the general population.
This pricing structure places GCB Bank at odds with emerging market norms that prioritise affordability and accessibility as key pillars of digital banking strategy.
In a competitive environment where ease and low-cost digital engagement are decisive factors, GCB’s structure could inadvertently alienate a large swathe of its customer base.
2. Broader Implications of GCB’s New Charges
The ramifications of GCB Bank’s new fee structure extend far beyond immediate customer dissatisfaction. They pose systemic risks to digital adoption, customer loyalty, operational efficiency, and Ghana’s national financial inclusion agenda.
2.1. Digital Adoption and Financial Exclusion Risks
One of the primary drivers of Ghana’s recent gains in financial inclusion has been the widespread adoption of digital banking channels (World Bank, 2024).
Lower-income and rural populations, in particular, have benefited from reduced transaction costs and broader mobile money integrations.
By introducing relatively high fixed and percentage-based digital charges, GCB risks reversing these gains, pushing vulnerable groups back toward cash-based transactions, informal financial services, or financial exclusion altogether.
The Global Findex Database indicates that cost barriers are the second most cited reason for not using formal financial services in Sub-Saharan Africa (Demirgüç-Kunt et al., 2022).
2.2. Reputational Risks for GCB’s Brand
GCB Bank has long positioned itself as “Your Bank for Life,” emphasising mass accessibility and national development support. The introduction of charges that disproportionately affect low- and middle-income earners contradicts this brand promise.
In an increasingly transparent and digitally empowered consumer environment, reputational damage from perceived corporate insensitivity could drive customers toward more customer-friendly competitors.
2.3. Operational Setbacks: Branch Congestion
One unintended consequence of expensive digital banking fees could be a renewed reliance on physical banking.
Customers seeking to avoid additional digital charges may revert to branch visits for basic services, increasing congestion at banking halls, precisely the operational inefficiency that digital banking sought to minimise.
This outcome would inflate operating costs, extend customer service times, and degrade the overall service experience.
2.4. Customer Attrition to Lower-Cost Competitors
In today’s highly competitive financial services landscape, switching banks has become relatively seamless, particularly among younger, digitally-savvy customers. Peer banks offering zero to minimal digital fees present a compelling alternative.
GCB risks significant customer attrition if it does not realign its digital strategy with market expectations.
n Kenya, for instance, high mobile transaction charges by some banks led to a 15% customer migration to low-cost digital platforms within a year (Central Bank of Kenya, 2023).
2.5. Policy Contradiction: Undermining the E-Levy Removal Gains
The removal of Ghana’s controversial Electronic Levy (E-Levy) in 2024 was hailed as a bold move to stimulate digital transactions and deepen financial inclusion (Ministry of Finance, 2024).
GCB’s hefty digital fees could blunt the intended benefits of that policy by reintroducing cost-based barriers to digital transactions, contradicting the spirit of government-led reforms and risking a loss of public trust in national financial sector strategies.
3. Missed Opportunity: GCB’s Scale Advantage
As Ghana’s largest bank by branch network and customer base, GCB Bank enjoys a distinct strategic advantage that most of its competitors cannot match: economies of scale.
In industries such as banking, where digital infrastructure costs are largely fixed after initial investment, a larger customer base typically enables institutions to distribute those costs more efficiently across millions of users, thereby reducing the per-customer cost burden (Berger & Mester, 2022).
Instead of leveraging this mass-market strength to democratize access to affordable digital banking, GCB’s new fee structure effectively shifts higher costs onto its customers. This decision represents a missed opportunity to reinforce its market leadership and national development role.
3.1. The Logic of Economies of Scale in Banking
Economies of scale arise when the cost per unit of service falls as the number of customers rises. In the digital context, once core infrastructure, such as mobile apps, transaction processing systems, and cybersecurity protocols, is established, incremental transactions by additional users impose relatively negligible costs.
This dynamic creates a strategic opening for large banks to offer digital services either free or at minimal charges, spurring higher volumes and greater customer loyalty.
Global examples abound. Leading digital-first banks such as Nubank (Brazil) and Kuda Bank (Nigeria) have successfully built profitability models based on high-volume, low-margin digital transactions (World Economic Forum, 2023).
They demonstrate that mass-market digital banking can be profitable without burdening customers with high fees.
3.2. Strategic Misalignment
In choosing to impose relatively high fees, GCB not only risks alienating its mass customer base but also forfeits the broader strategic benefits of volume-driven digital growth: increased deposits, higher customer lifetime value, richer transaction data for credit scoring, and enhanced cross-selling opportunities (Pwc, 2024).
These longer-term benefits outweigh the short-term revenue gains from new charges, especially in a developing market context where brand trust and affordability are paramount. In essence, GCB Bank had — and still has — the unique opportunity to become the undisputed leader of inclusive digital banking in Ghana.
However, this opportunity can only be realised through a pricing model that reflects its scale advantage and commitment to national financial empowerment.
4. Positives: Acknowledging the Senior Citizen Exemption
Despite the legitimate criticisms surrounding GCB Bank’s revised digital fee structure, it is important to acknowledge and commend the institution for its exemption of senior citizens aged 60 and above from the monthly E-Bundle fee.
This measure reflects an awareness of the need to protect vulnerable groups who often live on fixed incomes, face digital literacy challenges, and are more susceptible to financial exclusion if costs are prohibitive.
4.1. Why the Senior Exemption Matters?
Globally, digital financial exclusion among the elderly remains a persistent challenge. The World Bank’s Global Findex Database (2022) notes that individuals above 60 years old are nearly 30% less likely to use digital financial services compared to younger cohorts, often due to cost and usability barriers.
In Ghana, where nearly 7% of the population is above 60 years old (Ghana Statistical Service, 2023), safeguarding their access to affordable banking services is not only socially responsible but aligned with broader financial inclusion goals.
GCB’s exemption for seniors thus demonstrates a sensitivity that other banks should emulate. It sets an important precedent that vulnerable demographics require tailored financial strategies rather than a one-size-fits-all pricing model.
4.2. The Case for a Broader Tiered Fee Model
However, protecting only senior citizens, while laudable, is insufficient. Many low-income earners — including informal sector workers, students, and rural entrepreneurs — also face significant affordability challenges.
A tiered fee structure based on customer segments, transaction volumes, or account balances could create a more equitable digital financial ecosystem.
For example, customers with balances below a certain threshold or those in designated low-income regions could be offered reduced or zero fees to encourage digital banking uptake.
This approach would not only enhance GCB Bank’s brand reputation as a people-centred institution but would also align more closely with the government’s national inclusion strategies. Progressive tiering ensures that digital banking remains an engine for equity rather than a new vector of exclusion.
5. Policy and Strategic Recommendations
To realign its digital fee strategy with Ghana’s broader financial inclusion and digital economy goals, GCB Bank — and by extension, other financial institutions — must adopt a set of carefully considered, customer-centric policies.
These recommendations aim to strengthen competitiveness, protect vulnerable populations, and safeguard the future of digital banking growth in Ghana.
5.1. Introduce a Tiered Pricing Model
GCB Bank should design a tiered digital service fee structure based on customer segments. Lower-income customers, students, rural populations, and micro-entrepreneurs could qualify for reduced or waived fees, while premium charges could apply to higher-income brackets or high-volume users.
Tiered pricing has been widely adopted in successful financial inclusion models globally, including by Kenya’s Equity Bank and India’s Paytm Payments Bank (World Economic Forum, 2023).
5.2. Recalibrate Fee Structures Closer to Market Rates
Given the comparative benchmarking against peer banks, GCB must recalibrate its digital fees to fall within the median market range.
For instance, aligning the E-Bundle fee closer to GHS 5–8 per month and lowering the Bank-to-Wallet transfer fee to 0.3–0.5% would enhance affordability while maintaining a sustainable revenue stream.
5.3. Improve Value Communication to Customers
Instead of presenting the charges as purely transactional costs, GCB should reframe the narrative around its digital offerings.
Clear communication that highlights value-added services (such as enhanced cybersecurity, new digital innovations, loyalty rewards, or faster transaction speeds) can help customers perceive fees as investments rather than penalties.
Transparent disclosure of fee structures — using mobile apps, SMS alerts, and email updates — will also build trust and mitigate customer backlash.
5.4. Strengthen Regulatory Oversight by the Bank of Ghana
The Bank of Ghana (BoG) should intensify its oversight role to ensure that digital banking fees across the sector promote inclusion rather than hinder it. BoG could:
Issue guidelines on reasonable pricing thresholds.
Mandate affordability assessments before approving new digital charges.
Encourage voluntary sector-wide standards for inclusive digital banking fees.
A strong regulatory posture would help balance financial institutions’ commercial interests with Ghana’s developmental priorities.
5.5. Explore Cross-Subsidisation Models
GCB Bank should explore cross-subsidisation strategies, wherein more profitable service lines, such as corporate banking, wealth management, or FX trading, can subsidise lower fees for mass-market digital customers.
Cross-subsidisation is a proven model in inclusive banking ecosystems, such as South Africa’s Absa Bank strategy (Absa Group Financial Report, 2023), ensuring that profitability and inclusion are not mutually exclusive.
7. Conclusion
GCB Bank stands at a pivotal crossroads. Its newly introduced digital charges, though perhaps motivated by internal revenue considerations, risk undermining Ghana’s hard-earned progress toward financial inclusion, digital adoption, and a 24-hour economy.
As Ghana’s largest indigenous bank, GCB’s actions reverberate far beyond its balance sheet — they influence public sentiment, shape market norms, and either accelerate or stall national development trajectories.
Financial inclusion is not a luxury; it is a national imperative. It underpins poverty reduction, economic resilience, entrepreneurship, and social equity.
Every fee structure, every product design decision, and every communication strategy must therefore be evaluated not only through a commercial lens but also through a developmental lens.
The need of the hour is leadership — visionary leadership that recognises the symbiotic relationship between inclusive finance and sustainable banking success.
GCB Bank must urgently rethink its digital fee strategy, leveraging its scale and brand goodwill to drive mass-market digital access, not restrict it.
It must align itself with the government’s broader agenda for inclusive economic empowerment, becoming a model for responsible banking in Ghana’s digital future. In doing so, GCB Bank will not only protect its commercial interests but also fulfil its higher calling: to be a true partner in Ghana’s journey toward a dynamic, inclusive, and resilient economy.
The path forward demands bold recalibration, customer-centred innovation, and a renewed commitment to making banking, especially digital banking, an accessible tool for all. The future of Ghana’s financial sector depends on such choices. Now is the time to lead.
–
The author, Ken Kissi, is a concerned digital banking advocate.
Kenn.kissi@gmail.com
+233 541 189996
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
