Ekow Abaka Essuman, legal counsel for former President Akufo-Addo, has asserted that unless Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa can present concrete evidence of any impropriety or illegal activities, his allegations concerning the acquisition of public lands by purported NPP politicians remain unfounded and can be dismissed as political rhetoric.

Essuman emphasized that without clear and substantial proof, the claims about these land acquisitions, which the Operation Recover All Loots (ORAL) initiative seeks to address, lack credibility and should not be taken at face value.

In a statement shared on his Twitter account, he called for a more evidence-based approach in addressing such serious accusations.

“In 2009, after the New Patriotic Party lost power, Hon. Samuel Okudzeto and Edward Omane Boamah initiated legal action challenging the purchase of public lands by the late Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey.
“Today, a similar approach is being taken, though it is now under a different name. Dr. Omane Boamah, who has clearly understood the court’s judgment, has chosen not to involve himself this time”.
Ekow Abaka Essuman

Essuman noted that Hon. Ablakwa is once again engaging in the same actions he undertook in 2009, which the court ruled in 2012 were improper unless backed by specific evidence.

He emphasized that the court highlighted the necessity of providing compelling evidence to prove claims of arbitrariness, bias, prejudice, capriciousness, personal animosity, or any breach of due process.

Accordingly, Essuman asserted that without such evidence, the court would not consider overriding the Lands Commission’s decisions in managing public lands with its own judgment.

He referenced the case of Okudzeto Ablakwa & Another v. Attorney-General & Another [22/05/2012] J1/4/2009, where the Court emphasized the need for concrete evidence of arbitrariness, bias, prejudice, capriciousness, personal animosity, or a breach of due process.

Esuuman maintained that without such evidence, the Court stated it would be inappropriate to use Article 296 to direct the Lands Commission on how public lands should be managed.

Misuse of Article 296 Discouraged

Furthermore, Ekow Abaka Essuman emphasized the importance of exercising caution when invoking Article 296, to ensure it is not used to undermine or compromise the independence and autonomy of state institutions.

He stressed that these institutions rely heavily on the expertise and specialized knowledge of technocrats and professionals in their operations.

Misusing this constitutional provision could interfere with their ability to make informed decisions and effectively manage public resources, thereby diminishing their efficiency and credibility.

“Judicial note is taken of the fact that land management in cities involves technical housing and town planning considerations which are the preserve of engineers, architects, town planners, surveyors, and draughtsmen.
“Any meaningful scheme of redevelopment will necessarily involve these or most of them”.
Ekow Abaka Essuman

Essuman noted that when professionals such as engineers and architects develop plans and frameworks based on their technical expertise, it is crucial for non-experts to exercise caution in questioning or undermining their work.

He emphasized that without clear and compelling evidence of impropriety or illegality, it is inappropriate to cast doubt on the decisions made by these specialists.

Their technical knowledge and experience, he noted, are vital in ensuring that projects are designed and executed effectively, and undermining their work without substantial proof could lead to detrimental outcomes and inefficiencies.

Essuman stated that the Court upheld the legality of Obetsebi-Lamptey’s acquisition of the public land, concluding that the transaction was conducted in accordance with the law.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Hon. Ablakwa’s claims, finding no basis for the allegations of impropriety or illegality.

Essuman emphasized that the ruling reinforced the principle that lawful acquisitions must be respected unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

This judgment served as a reminder of the need for substantial proof when challenging the actions of public officials or institutions.