The Office of the President has directed the Tema Metropolitan Assembly and TDC Ghana Limited to end their continuing impasse and establish a clear framework for working together, in a letter issued by the Presidency, that affirms TMA’s statutory regulatory authority over the Tema Metropolis while recognising TDC’s role as a commercial property developer.
The directive follows a public standoff over an infilling and development project at Community One Site Three in Tema, where TMA ordered TDC to suspend work over a missing development permit, a dispute that escalated into public statements from both institutions before President Mahama summoned officials from both bodies for consultations.
TMA Confirmed as the Highest Authority in Tema
The letter is unambiguous about where ultimate municipal authority lies. It recognises TMA as the highest political and administrative authority within the Tema Metropolis, responsible for overall development, human settlements, municipal services, revenue mobilisation and local planning.
TMA remains the local planning authority, with responsibility for regulating physical development and issuing development and building permits within its jurisdiction.
By contrast, the letter describes TDC Ghana Limited as a commercially oriented real estate developer, not a municipal, legislative or planning authority. Its activities in the Tema Metropolis must therefore comply with TMA’s regulations and applicable laws, a framing that directly addresses the permit dispute at the centre of the standoff.
Obligations on Both Sides
The directive is not one-sided. TDC is instructed to recognise and comply with TMA’s statutory authority on development control, spatial planning, permitting, municipal services, rates, fees and other regulatory matters.
But TMA is equally bound by conditions on how it exercises that authority, instructed to apply its regulatory powers fairly, transparently and strictly according to law, without unnecessarily obstructing legitimate development, investment or TDC’s commercial operations.
The letter draws a clear line between the two institutions’ respective mandates, stating that neither should take over functions legally assigned to the other.
TMA is to focus on its municipal and regulatory mandate, while TDC concentrates on property development and related responsibilities, a formulation intended to prevent the kind of jurisdictional overlap that produced the Community One Site Three dispute in the first place.
A Framework Due Within Two Weeks
The Presidency has assigned direct responsibility for resolving the underlying tension to two sector ministers.
The Ministers responsible for Works, Housing and Water Resources and for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs are directed to establish an administrative and operational framework defining the roles and relationship between TMA and TDC going forward.
That framework must address development permitting, infrastructure coordination, revenue obligations, information sharing, dispute resolution and regular engagement between the two institutions.
The two ministers are required to convene TMA and TDC and submit the agreed framework, together with a report on outstanding issues, to the President within 14 days of the letter, placing a firm deadline on what has so far been an unresolved institutional conflict playing out partly in public view.
An Immediate Order to Stand Down Publicly
Pending that framework, both institutions have been ordered to immediately stop actions, public statements and media engagements that could worsen the dispute, a direct response to the public exchanges between TMA and TDC that had characterised the standoff in the weeks leading up to the letter.
The Presidency’s tone leaves little room for further delay or defiance. The President expects full cooperation and an immediate and lasting resolution, warning that further institutional conflict, public confrontation or refusal to comply will be viewed seriously, language that signals consequences for either institution that continues the dispute despite the directive.
A Dispute Rooted in Overlapping History
The underlying tension reflects institutions with long, sometimes overlapping histories in the same jurisdiction. TDC has operated as a property developer since 1952 within the Tema Acquisition Area, predating TMA’s establishment as the area’s local government authority responsible for municipal administration and spatial planning.
That layered history, one institution holding legacy development rights and the other holding statutory planning authority over the same territory, has periodically produced friction, with the Community One Site Three permit dispute serving as the latest and most public flashpoint.
With the bottom line now set by the Presidency, TMA’s regulatory and planning authority stands reaffirmed, while TDC’s commercial development role continues under that authority rather than alongside it as an equal or independent power.
Whether the two institutions can translate that settled hierarchy into a working framework within the ministers’ 14-day deadline will determine whether Tema’s development disputes recur or finally find a durable resolution.
READ ALSO: IEA Fellow Backs Calls for Mineral Revenue Management Act
