A businessman and native of Osu in the Greater Region, Jonathan Holm in his own capacity has taken a legal action against former President Jerry John Rawlings for acquiring a property belonging to the state.

Mr Holm is making claims against Ex-President Rawlings that by a letter dated May 3, 2016 to the Lands Commission and drawing authority from the then sitting president,  allocated 4.368 acres of public land at Ridge allocated to his personal name.

Meanwhile, the said property is a public land that was compulsory acquired under Section 3 of the Public Land Ordinance of 1876 to be used for public interest.

Indeed, since the year of acquisition the government has used the land as a residential area for public officers, especially for accommodation of government bungalows, of which Mr Rawlings lives in one of said bungalows.

The plaintiff, Mr Holm through his attorney, Lawyer Bright Akwetey initiated the suit in December 12, 2019.

It was the plaintiff claim that the land was allocated to Mr Rawlings for 99 years with the right to review the lease for a further 50 years on expiry of the initial term at an annual on renewable rents of GHC10 for the entire two teams.

Even though the purpose for allocation was not initially stated, Mr Rawlings in his acknowledgement letter dated May 9, 2016 to the then sitting president, stated that the land will be used and dedicated to the development of structures for the Rawlings Foundation.

In the same letter, Mr Rawlings requested that the Lands Commission should to add additional land close to the 4.3 68 acres and measuring approximately 50% of the allocated land to the portion already acquired, so to have enough space for parking for staff and visitors.

Meanwhile, the allocation made by the lands Commission to Mr Rawlings is deemed unlawful and violates Article 20(5) and 6 of the 1992 Constitution.

“By virtue of the 1992 Constitution, which was promulgated by the first defendant (Mr Rawlings) and with particular reference to article 20(5) and 6, public lands acquired in the public interest are required to be used for public purposes that would ensure to the benefits of government generally and not for personal selected, sectarian or esoteric purposes,” Mr Holm claimed.

It was his contention that the constitution requires that if land compulsorily acquired for a stated public purpose is not used for the public purpose for which it was acquired or that it is no longer required for the public purpose for which it was initially acquired, the owner of the land immediately proceeds the compulsory acquisition.

Per the law, the owner should be given the first option to acquire the land, for which reason the land owner would be made to refund the compensation paid for sale or be made to pay the value of the Land.

By this, he claimed that the allocation of the land to Mr Rawlings, the Lands Commission has acted in violation of the constitution.

He also argued that the Rawlings Foundation is not a public purpose or a project in the public interest and cannot be established on the land in dispute.

The plaintiff is seeking among other things an order declaring they are location to the first defendant as unlawful, an order revoking the allocation and recovery of possession.

By Akutu Dede Adimer