<<Print>>

Controversy is raging over the recent 6-3 Supreme Court verdict on the �Jake Bungalow Saga� and the subsequent Cabinet decision not to sell the land �in dispute� to Mr. Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey. As usual, divergent views are being articulated passionately across the political and social divide as to the merits or otherwise of the two decisions; namely the May 23rd Supreme Court Jugdment which ruled in favour of the Attorney-General and Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey as the first and second defendants respectively on one hand and the May 24th Cabinet Decision not to respect or allow the sale of that particular state asset to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey on the other hand. Issues of morality or immorality; respect for rule of law and sanctity of contracts/leases entered into by the Lands Commission; the principles of equity, fairness and non-discrimination; malicious attacks on the integrity of judges and the judiciary as well as a streak of politics of populism and ethnocentrism tailored at playing on the keyboards of people`s emotions and sentiments for partisan electoral capital have combined to create a potentially �volatile� mix on our airwaves and print media. Indeed, it does appear hypocrisy has virtually become a virtue in the Ghanaian body-politic with so many of our politicians and the ruling class suffering from the �disease of selective amnesia�. For those who are in support of the Cabinet`s decision which is based on morality or the perceived immoral nature of Jake`s acquisition of the land �in dispute�, this author has two questions for their perusal. First: are they aware that by the time the parties went to court the transaction was a fait accompli in that the contract between the Lands Commission and Jake had been completed and the lease signed and the land paid for and receipt given for the transaction? Where two parties enter into a contract, can one party unilaterally cancel the contract? In law, the answer is in the negative. In politics, the cabinet appears to say yes! Secondly, where was morality when duty post accommodation facilities were sold to MPs of the first and second Parliaments of the 4th Republic? I suppose the future accommodation needs of future MPs had been satisfied? Where was morality when state assets placed on divestiture and government lands were sold to PNDC secretaries, NDC ministers and party functionaries and their close relatives/associates /spouses during the 19 years of uninterrupted PNDC/NDC (1 & 2) governments? Isn�t it obvious that the cabinet`s decision seeks to pre-empt the legal option of judicial review which the plaintiffs, who are incidentally and paradoxically members of the incumbent government, had indicated they would pursue in the wake of the Supreme Court Judgement? Is this a reflection of the cabinet`s tacit admission of lack of faith in the sustainability of the case of the plaintiffs in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion driven by emotions and malice? The attacks on the judges who �voted� in the majority relative to the critical issue of the constitutional requirement that public lands should be put to use �in the public interest�, are not only misplaced but also uneducated and infantile. In summary, the majority judgement held that three blocks of flats of at least four storeys which Jake had been directed by the Lands Commission as part of the terms of the transaction/lease to put up, were of better public interest than one house. The plaintiffs` case was that the land should be retained for the original purpose for which it was acquired, i.e. housing public officials which meant that it should be retained for the occupation of one family. The Minority took the view that leaving the land in its original form of one house for occupation of one family will serve public interest or public purpose better. Clearly, the majority judgement was in line with the letter and spirit of the �Accra Re-development Scheme� put in place in 1999 by the NDC (2) government to the effect that old dilapidated buildings occupying large plots of state/ government land should be demolished and replaced with more buildings capable of housing more families. It ought to be emphasized that the parties in the litigation (i.e. the plaintiffs and the defendants) agreed that the sale of the land to Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey was in line with the "Accra Re-development Scheme". And the latter Scheme as already stated, was meant to demolish old buildings and replace them with as many buildings as the plots can occupy hence when the plaintiffs and the minority judgement advocated the continuity or retention of the original policy or purpose of acquiring the land to house public officials did that position or advocacy not defeat the policy of or rationale behind the �Accra Re-development Scheme" put in place by the NDC(2) Administration in 1999; a Scheme which has since "given birth" to �a tall list� of beneficiaries including politicians and former government officials across the political divide, businessmen, diplomatic missions, foreign companies, traditional rulers, public corporations/agencies and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). It is also a public record that some of the proceeds/revenue accruing from the sale of lands/buildings have been applied to construct new accommodation facilities to house public and civil servants as well as government officials and other political appointees. These are the hard facts which unbridled partisanship, ugly politicization and "selective amnesia" have combined to relegate into near obscurity. The preceding opinion and the summary which follows have been informed by a critical review of both the majority and minority judgements delivered on May 23rd, 2012 and the subsequent Cabinet Decision of May 24, 2012 and the reactions for and against all three ( i.e. two judgements and cabinet decision). It is more or less a layman`s or if you like a �pocket or street lawyer�s� perspective on the issues arising from the �twin palaver� of the May 23rd Supreme Court Judgement and the May 24th Cabinet Decision. Of course, this perspective has also benefited from useful information and education courtesy of some trained legal minds and land economists and experts who wish to remain anonymous. Published below for the perusal of our numerous readers and �in the public interest� is the summary of the critical review of the issues arising from the �twin palaver� under reference. Please read on and stay tuned for more......