[ 2016-04-27 ]

Four sue gov't over sale of Achimota Forest

Four Ghanaians have sued the government over its
decision to cede the 16.2 square kilometre
Achimota Forest Reserve to a foreign investor for
eco-tourism.

According to filed court documents, the government
had signed an agreement with Aikan Capital Limited
for the Achimota Forest Reserve situated in Accra
to be transformed into an eco-tourism facility,
but plaintiffs in the suit are of the view that
the deal will harm the environment and pose health
and other risks to residents of Accra.




The plaintiffs are Dr Adolf Lutterodt, an
educationist; Ms Dede Amanor Wilks, a development
specialist; Mr Kwame Dadzoe, a lawyer, and Ms
Elizabeth Tettey-Sei Adams, a businesswoman.

“Plaintiffs are informed that the agreement for
the project has the backing of the Ministry of
Lands and Natural Resources, the sector ministry
in charge of forests, and the Forestry
Commission,” a statement of claim accompanying
the writ of summons noted.

The plaintiffs are, therefore, seeking an order
“declaring that the removal of the Achimota
Forest is inimical to the public welfare, public
health and the interest of the people of
Ghana”.

The defendants are the Attorney-General, the
Forestry Commission, the Lands Commission and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Reliefs

In a writ of summons filed on their behalf at the
Human Rights Division of the High Court by their
lawyer, Mr Bright Akwetey, the plaintiffs are
pleading with the court to declare that the
removal of the forest will degrade the environment
and endanger the flora and fauna in the forest.

It is also seeking a declaration that the health
benefits from safeguarding and preserving the
forest far outweigh the economic benefits
anticipated by the government by the removal of
the forest.

It is further seeking an order to restrain the
defendants from interfering with the forest to
protect, preserve and enhance its benefits to the
environment for the people of Accra.

In addition, it is praying for an order for
perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants
from undertaking any activity or initiating any
step to transform, change or interfere with the
forest in any way.

Statement of claim

A statement of claim accompanying the writ stated
that the plaintiffs were of the firm belief that
“the removal of the forest cover and the
greenery provided by the Achimota Forest in
exchange for an eco-tourism facility was inimical
to the health of the people living in Accra and
its environs and posed a threat/danger to the
health of the environment and must be stopped by
an order of the court in the supreme interest of
the people of Accra”.

It said the removal of the forest would offend
against the duties entrusted by law to the
Attorney-General, the Forestry Commission, the
Lands Commission and the EPA.

According to the plaintiffs, they, just like other
Ghanaians, had a duty to safeguard and protect the
environment.

Shirked responsibility According to the statement,
the defendants “are shirking their legal, moral
and social responsibilities by taking the decision
to remove the Achimota Forest for financial
benefits, to the detriment of the health of the
people living in Accra”.

It said the removal of the forest reserve would
further degrade the already degraded environment
in Accra, to the benefit of a foreign investor’s
financial gains.

It was of the view that the health of the people
living in Accra should not be exchanged for the
financial benefits of the investor.

It noted that unless otherwise ordered by the
court, the Lands Commission would be directed by
the government to issue the appropriate documents
of title to the investor to undertake the
eco-tourism facility project.

It also noted that unless ordered by the court,
the EPA would also be directed by the government
to issue appropriate authorisation and permits to
the investor for the implementation of the
project.

According to the statement, unless stopped, the
Attorney-General’s office would use its
“powers of coercion to facilitate the removal of
the forest for the degradation of the environment,
to the detriment of society but for the benefit of
the investor”.

Source - Daily Graphic

... go Back