Private Legal Practitioner, Martin Kpebu, has asserted that government has no business returning 300 acres of Achimota Forest land to the Owoo family.

Mr. Kpebu’s statement was premised on a ruling by the Supreme Court Judge, in 2010, which categorically bars any government from returning any piece of land owned by the state to the original owners/claimants.

Contributing to discussions on the Super Morning Show, on Tuesday, Mr. Kpebu argued that "when public officers say they are returning state-owned lands on compassionate grounds that’s obviously going around the Supreme Court decision indirectly," which he said should not be countenanced by the public.

A decision by the government to return a portion of the Achimota Forest Reserve (measuring over 300 acres) to the Owoo family purported to be the allodial owners, has been greeted with a massive uproar.

In spite of various justifications by the government, the lawyer mentioned that he suspects "conflict of interest" at play.

"The person returning the land to the family gets an interest in same. Nobody will give out even one acre without taking one plot. There have been suspicions and there’s evidence on the grounds that people who grant also have an interest. You’ll never find a public officer who will sign to return the land to a family without getting a part," he said.

Mr. Kpebu added that, "Anyone who says state-owned land is being returned to the ‘original owners/claimants’ because the Constitution says so or that no compensation was paid, is either ignorant or lying."

The ruling

Nii Kpobi Tettey Tsuru v Attorney-General [2010] SCGLR 904

Per Dotse JSC

"We are certain in our views that Article 20 of the Constitution, 1992 only deals with land acquisitions that are effected after the 1992 Constitution came into effect, and this by operation of law is January 7th, 1993.

Our conviction and resolve is further buttressed by the provisions in Article 20(2) of the Constitution which provide that compulsory acquisition of property by the State can only take place under a legal regime which provides for prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation and a right of access to the High Court by any affected person of such an acquisition.

It must be noted that there have been several instances of a lot of acquisition of lands by the State in the past, for which compensation has not yet been paid.

...

If the Constitutional provisions should have retrospective effect then all such acquisitions of land by the State under the past legal regimes would be unconstitutional.  This state of affairs would not only create chaos and confusion in the land administration sector of the country but would lead to anarchy.

Thirdly, it must be noted that since the Constitution 1992 itself frowns upon and actually prohibits retrospective legislation, it is doubtful if the Constitution itself would be interpreted to have retrospective effect. 

Such an interpretation will not only be reactionary but counterproductive and will not be in the interest of the good and orderly development and administration of the country.

This court will therefore hold and rule that Articles 20 (5) and (6) of the Constitution, 1992 have no retrospective effect on acquisitions of land done under CAP 134 the Public Lands Ordinance which is the subject matter of this appeal."