Law is cheaper before the bulldozer. Sometimes you give a harmless caution, and it gets the usual treatment: “You are doing politics.”

For what benefit to me, really? On 19th September, I cautioned against the plan to demolish the La Pleasure Beach. An exercise expected that Sunday did not proceed. The bulldozer stayed away for about two weeks.

And I know that my take here was responsible for the stalling of the demolition. I knew the lead national security officer involved was unhappy with my intervention. But my caution was neither political nor complicated.

I was not deciding who owned the land. I said simply: where rights and ownership are disputed, let the law and the courts speak before the bulldozer. Simply follow due process.

It reminded me of another caution I gave eight years ago, right here on the show. In 2018, plans were made to demolish state properties to make way for the National Cathedral. I warned, quote, “There is no need to build a cathedral on a foundation of lies.”

That was not a position against building a cathedral. It was a caution about proceeding when serious questions had been raised about the justification for demolishing relatively new state properties and the cost of replacing them elsewhere. Different controversy. Same instinct.

Before the state exercises enormous power in a manner that may be irreversible, simply be sure of the facts, the law and the consequences. That’s all.

About two weeks after my September caution, the bulldozers eventually moved into the La Pleasure Beach. And I have deliberately not spent the days since saying, “I told you so.” I have no property there.

I represent none of the competing interests. I have no personal interest in who ultimately establishes title. I was simply doing this job, my job.

My concern was what ought to be sound and proper in a society governed by laws. And now, the bulldozers have spoken.

The Senate says it requested National Security’s intervention because it considers the occupation unlawful and says it has a responsibility to protect valuable assets belonging ultimately to workers and pensioners.

Fine. Those asserting rights to the land say otherwise. We have heard them.

Let the competing documents, the evidence and the law determine who is right, not the bulldozer. Nobody needs a bulldozer to determine title to land. That doesn’t happen in a democracy.

That is what the court is there for. If you have to eject people, simply use due process. But now, we hear concerns from traditional authorities.

We hear the MP and the NDC party’s constituency leadership. There is an obvious political cost developing around the exercise. I’m shocked it was not foreseen.

And now, we hear about compensation. If compensation is lawfully due, by all means, compensate those entitled to it. But I hope we will also hear about accountability.

Because if an avoidable exercise results in compensation, litigation or eventually judgment debts, somebody must account for the decision that created that liability.

When I spoke first, I referred to the Polo Beach and the fact that they were in court with the same institutions that apparently gave National Security instructions. And National Security was actually also in court. And the lead person, Richard Jakpa, was also in court. And there was an injunction process that was pending.

I hope the answer is not simply to reach for the public purse in this compensation matter.

The taxpayer must not become the insurer of official impatience. Bulldoze today, compensate tomorrow, charge it to the taxpayer. Nobody answers. Move on.

That cannot be the normal order of governance. And this is bigger than La Pleasure Beach, SSNIT, National Security or any particular government.

It is bigger than any particular government. Governments change. Officials change. Political parties will change. State power remains.

And whenever that enormous power confronts genuinely disputed rights, restraint is not weakness.

Due process is not an inconvenience. Sometimes, it protects the citizens. Sometimes, it protects government from itself.

And sometimes, it protects the taxpayer from paying tomorrow for an avoidable decision made today.

That is why the rule of law is cheaper before the bulldozer than after it. Before the bulldozer, it requires patience, notice, documents, due process and, where necessary, a judge.

After the bulldozer, there may be compensation, litigation, judgment debts, political damage and taxpayer money.

Eight years ago, my caution was, “Don’t build a cathedral on a foundation of lies.”

On 19 September, my caution was, “Let the law and the courts speak before the bulldozer.”

Different controversies, same principle. I am not interested in saying, “I told you so.” I am interested in whether we learn.

Let the law speak first. Let the courts speak before the bulldozer. And that is my take.