Authorities of the La Pleasure Beach Resort in Accra have raised concerns over what they describe as an attempt to forcibly take over the beachfront and demolish structures occupied by businesses and other operators.
According to the management committee of the beach, the alleged move has created fear and uncertainty among bar owners, business operators, workers and other stakeholders whose livelihoods depend on activities at the facility.
At a press engagement, representatives of the La Pleasure Beach authorities accused Mr. Richard Jakpa, Director of Special Operations at the National Security, and persons allegedly acting on his behalf of threatening to demolish structures at the beachfront to pave the way for a takeover.
The authorities also linked the alleged takeover attempt to the management of Labadi Beach Hotel, claiming that the hotel had asserted ownership over portions of the beachfront.
They, however, disputed the claim and called on the government to intervene urgently to prevent what they described as an unlawful takeover and possible displacement of businesses operating at the beach.
The La Pleasure Beach authorities said the resort has existed since 1960, long before the establishment of the Labadi Beach Hotel.
They questioned how the hotel could claim ownership of the beachfront when, according to their account, the beach had already been in existence and serving the community decades before the hotel was established.
They further explained that when the hotel was being established in 1991, the La traditional authorities considered a request concerning the extension of the hotel’s boundary.
According to them, the then Chief of La permitted the hotel to extend its fence wall beyond the Marley Stream to its current boundary, but the arrangement did not confer ownership of the beachfront beyond that boundary on the hotel.
The authorities argued that the historical circumstances surrounding the establishment and subsequent expansion of the hotel should therefore be considered in determining ownership and control of the beachfront.
They also questioned why, if the hotel had always considered the beachfront to be its property, it had on several occasions allegedly sought permission and paid rent to the beach management and traditional authorities when organising events at the beachfront.
The La Pleasure Beach authorities also rejected claims that the beachfront falls within land acquired by the government under the 1967 acquisition associated with the Trade Fair.
They argued that the acquisition, which they referred to as GI 10 of 1967, does not extend to the beachfront.
They therefore described any assertion that the beach forms part of the Trade Fair acquisition as inaccurate and said the claim should not be used as justification for taking over the facility.
The authorities maintained that the matter requires proper stakeholder engagement and verification of the relevant historical and land documents before any action is taken.
The press briefing also raised questions about the alleged involvement of National Security personnel in the proposed demolition.
The beach authorities claimed they had been informed that Mr. Jakpa had invited some bar owners and warned them to stop reporting to the beach because the hotel purportedly claimed ownership of the beachfront.
They further alleged that National Security as an institution was not aware of the purported demolition and takeover arrangements.
The authorities therefore called for clarity on whether any official government directive or authorisation existed for the proposed demolition.
They urged the government to ensure that no public institution or security agency is used to facilitate what they described as a private takeover of a community facility without due process.
Beyond the ownership dispute, the authorities said the issue has serious economic and social implications for residents and workers who depend on the La Pleasure Beach for their livelihoods.
They stressed that the beach supports numerous businesses, including drinking spots, restaurants, entertainment operators and other small-scale enterprises, providing employment for hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
They warned that demolishing the structures or forcibly taking over the beachfront without an alternative arrangement could leave many workers and business owners without their sources of income.
“The La Pleasure Beach provides employment for hundreds, if not thousands, of workers and means of livelihood for many,” the authorities said.
They argued that any action that displaces the operators without meaningful consultation and a fair resolution would have a significant impact on families and businesses connected to the beach.
The authorities also appealed to the government to take into account what they described as La’s significant contribution to Ghana’s national development through land acquisitions and allocations for major public projects.
They cited areas and institutions including Burma Camp, the 37 Military Hospital, the University of Ghana, the Accra Airport and other developments as examples of land associated with La that has contributed to national infrastructure and development.
Against that background, they appealed to the government to protect the remaining spaces that serve as sources of livelihood for residents and community members.
The La Pleasure Beach authorities have consequently appealed directly to President John Dramani Mahama to intervene in the matter and prevent any demolition or forceful takeover until the concerns of all parties have been addressed.
They called on the President to engage the individuals and institutions allegedly behind the proposed takeover, including Mr. Richard Jakpa and the board chairman of Labadi Beach Hotel, Tete Katerno, and ensure that the matter is resolved through dialogue.
They also appealed for an emergency meeting involving the government, La traditional authorities, the beach management, Labadi Beach Hotel, business operators, security agencies and other relevant stakeholders.
The objective, they said, should be to establish the facts surrounding ownership and control of the beachfront and arrive at a peaceful, fair and lasting solution.
The authorities maintained that they were not opposed to development or efforts to improve revenue generation from the area, but insisted that any redevelopment must take into consideration the businesses, workers and community members whose livelihoods are tied to the beach.
They are therefore urging the government to halt any further demolition or takeover action until the competing claims have been properly examined and all affected stakeholders have been given an opportunity to be heard.
The dispute now places renewed attention on the need for clear land documentation, stakeholder consultation and due process whenever development or redevelopment projects affect established businesses and community livelihoods.
By 1960news.com
