By Samson Lardy Anyenini
The Rule of Law is cheaper before the bulldozer
The recent demolition of structures at the La beachfront in Accra has generated considerable controversy over land ownership, the rights of affected businesses and the involvement of State security agencies. The exercise, undertaken on 2nd October, 2026 under National Security supervision, has seen beachside businesses suffer demolition, leaving investments destroyed, workers displaced and families counting their losses.
Facilities associated with La Pleasure Beach and Polo Beach Club estimated to cost tens of millions of Cedis now face potential judgment debt. It followed an earlier demolition controversy at Laboma Beach.
The Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT), which has interests in Labadi Beach Hotel through Hotel Investments (Ghana) Limited (HIG), has defended the intervention as necessary to protect the hotel’s property and the investments of contributors and pensioners. The affected operators and traditional authorities have challenged aspects of the exercise, including the characterisation of occupants as squatters.
The controversy has since attracted political attention, with discussions about compensation and the suspension of redevelopment plans pending further consultations.
But there is a substantial history behind this dispute that deserves public attention. It involves an alleged compulsory acquisition of land by the State, agreements entered into by a government ministry and traditional authorities, commercial transactions involving the hotel company, and decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal concerning the management of La Pleasure Beach.
That history makes the legal issues considerably more complicated than the simple question of removing squatters from State land.
THE 1967 STATE ACQUISITION
One important aspect of the controversy is the claim that the beachfront formed part of the lands acquired by the State under Executive Instrument No. 10 of 1967, for the Accra–Labadi Trade Fair project.
If the particular parcels affected by the demolitions fall within the boundaries of that acquisition, the State’s title and the legal consequences of the acquisition become central to the dispute.
However, the fact that the State acquired land in an area does not automatically establish that every adjoining parcel belongs to it. The precise boundaries must be determined from the acquisition instrument and the relevant survey records.
Even where State ownership is established, a separate question remains: what rights did the State subsequently grant or recognise in respect of the land?
State ownership and lawful occupation by another person are not necessarily inconsistent. Government may own land while another person lawfully occupies or uses it under a lease, licence or other legally recognised arrangement.
THE 2002 AGREEMENT: THE STATE AND LA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL
On 29th April, 2002, the Ministry of Tourism and the La Traditional Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the joint management of La Beach.
The agreement was intended to promote beach tourism while ensuring that the local community benefited from the commercial activities conducted there.
It provided for a six-member management team, comprising three representatives of the Ministry and three of the Traditional Council.
The agreement also provided that the Traditional Council would receive 20% of the net monthly proceeds from beach operations, while the Ministry would allocate 30% of the remaining 80% to a La Development Fund.
Importantly, the parties agreed that neither would transfer its interest under the agreement without the other’s prior written consent.
These provisions establish that, as far back as 2002, the Ministry of Tourism was formally involved in arrangements recognising the La Traditional Council’s participation in the management and commercial benefits of the beach.
The agreement did not, by itself, determine ownership of the land. But it created a framework for management and revenue sharing involving the State and traditional authorities.
The beach was therefore not simply an area operating beyond the knowledge or involvement of Government.
THE HOTEL’S AGREEMENTS WITH LA PLEASURE BEACH
The documentary history becomes particularly interesting in 2007.
On 23rd March, 2007, Hotel Investments (Ghana) Limited, the company associated with Labadi Beach Hotel, entered into an agreement with the La Pleasure Beach Resort Management Committee for the use of beachfront between the hotel’s southern fence and the sea.
The agreement provided for a ten-year term, commencing on 1st March, 2007 and ending on 28th February, 2017.
It also provided for the payment of annual rent, subject to adjustments linked to inflation.
Under the arrangement, HIG could demarcate the area, plant coconut trees, install temporary facilities and use the beachfront for specified hotel-related purposes.
On 6th May, 2008, HIG entered into a further agreement with the Management Committee for an additional beachfront area, at an annual rent of GH¢1,627, with inflation-based adjustments.
The supplementary agreement also addressed the removal of a bandstand and another structure near the hotel’s beachfront.
Both agreements demonstrate that HIG had a documented commercial relationship with the Management Committee and dealt with it as a body capable of permitting the hotel company’s use of portions of the beachfront.
That is a significant historical fact.
It does not conclusively establish that the Management Committee owned the land or possessed authority to grant every interest it purported to grant. Neither does it establish that all persons affected by the recent demolitions were lawful occupants.
But it complicates any sweeping suggestion that the hotel and the beachfront operators had always stood in the relationship of lawful owner and unknown trespassers.
The hotel company itself negotiated for the use of beachfront space through the La Pleasure Beach Management Committee.
THE 2022 REQUEST FOR ANOTHER TWENTY YEARS
There is another important development.
On 28th April, 2022, Hotel Investments (Ghana) Limited wrote to the Registrar of the La Traditional Council requesting renewal of its expired beachfront lease.
The letter stated:
“I write on behalf of Hotel Investments (Ghana) Limited (HIG) to request for a renewal of our Beach Front Lease which has expired.”
The company requested a further twenty-year lease and indicated that the previous lease agreement and site plans were attached.
The significance is that HIG acknowledged the existence of an earlier lease arrangement and sought its renewal through the La Traditional Council.
The letter does not establish that the requested renewal was granted. It also does not, without the underlying lease and survey documents, establish the exact extent of the land concerned.
Nevertheless, taken together with the 2007 and 2008 agreements, it reveals a sustained history of commercial dealings concerning beachfront occupation and use.
Those transactions deserve to be reconciled with the present competing claims to ownership and the authority to control the beachfront.
THE COURTS WERE ALSO INVOLVED
The management of La Pleasure Beach was not left entirely to private arrangements.
Disagreements arose over the implementation of the 2002 agreement, the management of beach operations and the handling of revenue.
These disputes resulted in litigation involving the La Dadekotopon Youth Association, the La Mantse and other defendants.
On 3rd December, 2013, the High Court, presided over by Justice Anthony Kofi Abada, granted an interlocutory application and ordered the establishment of an interim management committee.
The committee was to comprise representatives of the youth association, Ghana Tourism Development Company and the La Traditional Council.
The court also directed attention to the establishment of the La Development Fund and the proper accounting of revenue generated from beach operations.
The substantive dispute continued, and the High Court delivered judgment on 21st October, 2014.
The matter subsequently reached the Court of Appeal.
On 21st July, 2022, the Court of Appeal directed the establishment of a nine-member management committee, with three representatives each from the La Traditional Council, Ghana Tourism Development Company and La Dadekotopon Youth Association.
The existing interim committee was to hand over to the newly constituted body in accordance with the court’s directions.
A subsequent document setting out the terms of operation of the management committee appears to reflect the implementation of that arrangement.
These judicial proceedings are significant because they demonstrate that the management of La Pleasure Beach had become the subject of formal court orders involving recognised stakeholder institutions.
It is important, however, to appreciate the limits of those decisions.
A judicial order determining who should manage a beach is not necessarily a judgment determining ownership of the underlying land.
The courts’ intervention in management arrangements therefore cannot, without more, be treated as conclusive proof that the management committee owned the land or that every structure subsequently erected was lawful.
The current status of any further Supreme Court proceedings must also be established before treating the appellate dispute as finally concluded.
Nevertheless, the history of litigation and judicial intervention is relevant to understanding the institutional arrangements governing the beach.
OWNERSHIP IS NOT THE SAME AS THE POWER TO DEMOLISH
This brings us to the central legal distinction.
A person or institution may have a superior claim to land without necessarily possessing an unrestricted power to remove occupants or destroy structures.
Ghana’s laws recognise procedures for recovering possession and enforcing rights over land.
For public land, section 236 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) provides a statutory mechanism for addressing unlawful occupation and encroachment, including powers of removal and demolition where the prescribed conditions are satisfied.
The law therefore does not invariably require a prior court order before every demolition. A prior court order, in compliance with due process, would be unavoidable if the land was the subject of a court dispute, like the Polo Beach Club case where there is an injunction application pending.
Any public authority relying on a statutory power must be able to demonstrate that the power applies to the particular land and circumstances, and that the action was undertaken by an authority legally empowered to act.
The involvement of National Security or military personnel does not, by itself, establish the legal basis for demolishing structures.
The decisive issue is whether the particular exercise was authorised by law and carried out within the limits of that authority.
THE RISK OF COMPENSATION AND JUDGMENT DEBTS
The possibility of compensation has now become part of the public discussion.
That possibility should not be confused with an admission that the demolition was unlawful.
If the affected operators possessed enforceable rights and those rights were unlawfully interfered with, claims for damages or compensation may arise.
Even where a claimant cannot establish ownership of the land, separate questions may arise concerning destroyed equipment, movable property, business assets and other legally protected interests.
On the other hand, where a demolition is lawfully authorised and properly executed, that may provide a substantial answer to claims arising from the exercise.
The outcome will depend on the evidence, the legal rights established and the responsibility of the persons or institutions involved.
A judgment debt is therefore not inevitable. But the risk of substantial liability cannot responsibly be dismissed where commercial investments have been destroyed amid competing claims to land and occupation rights.
There is also an important distinction between liability incurred by a public institution, a company and the Government itself. The identity of the party legally responsible will determine who must ultimately satisfy any judgment.
The prospect of compensation should therefore be accompanied by a careful examination of the legal basis for the demolitions and the responsibility for the decisions taken.
THE LARGER LESSON
The La beachfront controversy illustrates why land ownership, management authority, occupation rights and statutory enforcement powers must be carefully distinguished.
The 1967 acquisition claim raises questions about the State’s title.
The 2002 agreement establishes the Ministry of Tourism’s formal involvement in the management of La Beach alongside the La Traditional Council.
The 2007 and 2008 agreements demonstrate that the hotel company negotiated commercial rights over portions of the beachfront with the La Pleasure Beach Management Committee.
The 2022 correspondence shows that the hotel company subsequently sought renewal of an expired beachfront lease from the Traditional Council.
And the judicial proceedings establish that the management of La Pleasure Beach had been the subject of decisions by the High Court and Court of Appeal.
None of these matters, taken individually or collectively, conclusively determines ownership of every affected parcel or the legality of the recent demolitions.
But together, they establish a history that cannot be overlooked in any serious examination of the controversy.
The claims concerning Polo Beach Club must likewise be determined according to the evidence relating to that property and the proceedings involving its operators.
Ultimately, the law must determine the competing rights and responsibilities.
The State may own the land. Another person may have a lawful interest in its occupation or use. And neither proposition, standing alone, determines the legality of a demolition.
That is why the exercise of public power must be grounded in law, particularly where its consequences may be irreversible.
The bulldozers may finish their work in a matter of hours. The resulting litigation, compensation claims and financial consequences may endure for years.
And where public institutions are ultimately found liable, the financial burden may extend well beyond those who authorised the exercise.
The taxpayer must not become the insurer of avoidable official decisions.
The lesson extends beyond La Pleasure Beach, Labadi Beach Hotel, SSNIT or any particular government.
State power remains when governments and public officials change. The discipline of the rule of law must remain with it.
Because the cost of establishing and respecting legal rights before taking irreversible action may be far less than the cost of defending that action afterwards.
The rule of law is cheaper before the bulldozer than after it.
Join Samson Lardy ANYENINI on his weekly legal clinic, THE LAW, on the JoyNews Channel every Sunday @ 2:00 p.m., with a repeat broadcast on Monday at 11:00 a.m. THE LAW is your legal light and your help law.