No government can take over the Nkonya-Alavanyo lands. The land has a demarcation between the two parties supported by court decisions right up to the Appeal Court (the highest court at the time of last ruling). All the gover ... read full comment
No government can take over the Nkonya-Alavanyo lands. The land has a demarcation between the two parties supported by court decisions right up to the Appeal Court (the highest court at the time of last ruling). All the government needs is the will to enforce the ruling, PERIOD. ANYTHING SHORTY OF THAT IS PURE DISHONESTY WHICH IS WHAT IS KILLING US IN THIS COUNTRY. Thank you, Mr Reader.
Nzema K 8 years ago
I suggest Govt Build a 2nd volta University on the disputed land. It will in that sense benefit everybody including Non-Nkonyas and Non-Alavanyos
I suggest Govt Build a 2nd volta University on the disputed land. It will in that sense benefit everybody including Non-Nkonyas and Non-Alavanyos
Obed Adore 8 years ago
Wow! The government seems to want take a cheaper way out of this case, but will not be. There is no disputed land per se, as existing court judgemnent(s) seem to indicate.
Although government has the power and right to take ... read full comment
Wow! The government seems to want take a cheaper way out of this case, but will not be. There is no disputed land per se, as existing court judgemnent(s) seem to indicate.
Although government has the power and right to take over an individual or a groups of individuals or community's land it must be negotiated and duly compensated for, as enshrined in the county's constitution!
Kofi Bayulam 8 years ago
Re: Stakeholders want govenment to take over disputed lands at Alavanyo/Nkonya, Peki/Tsito
I convulsed when I read Tim Dzamboe’s report on page 65 in the May 14, 2015 issue of the Daily Graphic with the above-mentioned cap ... read full comment
Re: Stakeholders want govenment to take over disputed lands at Alavanyo/Nkonya, Peki/Tsito
I convulsed when I read Tim Dzamboe’s report on page 65 in the May 14, 2015 issue of the Daily Graphic with the above-mentioned caption.
One Report Two Captions? What has changed about what took place at Ho such that Tim had to reproduce the same story with a different caption from the previous day’s one that read “Stakeholders discuss land issues at Alavanyo/Nkonya, Peki/Tsito”? Was it arm-twisting or compromise of journalistic ethics and morality?
He listed thirteen out of the twenty-two identified stakeholders invited to the national forum held at Ho on May 11, 2015 as:
Volta Regional Police Command, Ghana Armed Forces, Evangelical Presbyterian (E. P.) Church, Catholic Church, The Muslim Council, Volta Regional House of Chiefs, Volta Regional Peace Council, Volta Parliamentary Caucus, Convention People’s Party (CPP), Peoples National Convention (PNC), Progressive Peoples Party (PPP), New Patriotic Party and National Democratic Party (NDC).
Strangely enough, the list put out in the newspaper did not include any of the traditional authorities of the four communities viz. Alavanyo, Nkonya, Peki and Tsito who are directly affected by these conflicts. Were they invited but not given prominence in the reportage or not? I hazard a guess that the Traditional Authorities were not invited.
With the exclusion of the Traditional Authorities, who then can rightfully claim to have more stakes in the resolution of the matter in issue?
What facts do the people/parties invited and given prominence have on the matters in issue to warrant their preferred choice for invitation over the traditional authorities?
These half-hearted and half-baked approaches to issues such as these have, in no small measure, contributed to where we are as a nation today and the protracted nature of these conflicts.
In my opinion, an assembly of three eminent Supreme Court judges, three Paramount Chiefs, three security chiefs/experts and at least three representatives from each of the affected communities (to provide their respective perspectives on the issues) would have contributed to a more effective brain-storming forum than the Religious/political party assembly that took place at Ho on January 11, 2015.
What is the stake of those invited in the resolution of for example a matter of contempt of June, 1959 and December, 1975 Court of Appeal judgments in the case between Nkonya and Alavanyo based on the boundary demarcated by the ‘Karte des Sechsherrenstockes’ a map drawn by Dr. Hans Grunner and printed in Berlin, Germany in 1913?
I am appalled when I read reports that refer to the Nkonya/Alavanyo conflict as issues resulting from disputed land.
For time without number, I have put out articles to refute the claim of dispute over land yet people who should, if they so care, inquire about the real issues around the conflict just ignore the basic tenets of inquiry into a matter before jumping to hasty conclusion, continue to peddle the false notion that there is a dispute over land between Nkonya and Alavanyo.
I have cited the underlisted Suit Numbers and related Court judgments to back the claim that the boundary dispute between Nkonya and Alavanyo had been judially determined yet this error, through ignorance or carelessness, keeps popping up anytime there is a report on the criminal acts in the area.
In 1951, Nkonya filed a suit at Akpini Court “B”. The case was to determine and declare the true boundaries of Nkonya and Alavanyo. The case No. Tr. L 19/53 was later transferred to the land division of the high court in Accra under Justice Van Lare.
On 24th May, 1957 in the High Court, Accra, Justice Van Lare ruled in favour of Nkonya.
On 8th June, 1959 His Lordship, GRANVILLE SHARP J. A.(presiding) Court of Appeal, Suit No. 12/59 with C. S. Acolatse and H. O. Smith, up-held the accuracy and authenticity of the 1913 Gruner Map as indicating the true boundaries and that defendants (Alavanyo) are “estopped per rem judicatam” from ever raising the question about their boundaries;
In 1961, the Nkonyas instituted another legal action in the Ho High Court, this time against the individual citizens of Alavanyo who happened to have trespassed onto the Nkonya side of the undisputed 1913 Gruner boundary namely. Joseph Foli, Togbe Mensah Aniabor, Korkor Sampende, Trigautt Kosihu, W.A. Dornya, Kwasi Asigbetse, Eugene Prikutse and Aaron T. Kuma. During the court proceedings, two events occurred :-
a). The court gave an interim injunction in 1966 restraining both parties from entering the disputed land “till the final determination of the suit”
b). The court ordered a surveyor, Mr. Henry Hagan, to demarcate the Nkonya /Alavanyo boundaries based on the Dr. Grunner 1913 Plan Map. This was done and pillars were accordingly re-erected at points where the Alavanyos had willfully obliterated the 1913 pillars.
On May 7, 1970 two (2) Alavanyo citizens – Kwasikuma Kormegbe and Elias Agbedogli appeared before the High Court, Ho presided over by Justice G. R. Mc Vane Francois and testified to the fact that the land, then in dispute, was owned by Nkonya and that they were speaking on behalf of their other Alavanyo compatriots Alex Kormegbe, Akabu Kormegbe and Evebleame Kwami who had gone ahead to atorn tenancy to the Chief of Nkonya Tayi.
In December, 1970, High Court, Ho - Suit No. 28-35/61, 1970, Justice G. R. Mc Vane Francois ordered the Alavanyos to atorn tenancy within one month of the ruling to the Nkonyas if they did not want to be dispossessed of their farms. He stated that,
(a) “The impression one is left with is a strenuous bid by the defendants, the Alavanyos to discredit once more the Grunner Plan of 1913. “I regret, this third throw of the dice cannot yield the desired bonanza” page 5 paragraph 4 lines 1-4; and,
(b) “I must emphasize that this is the third judgment the defendants, the Alavanyos have lost; they have accordingly the last opportunity of showing their willingness to abide by the decisions of the courts of this land and acknowledge the boundary between them and the plaintiff”.
“ The courts are established to resolve conflicting interest in any society.
They are legally constituted and are above self or individual interest. If people fail to accept, recognize and respect the judgments of the courts based upon concrete and truthful evidence, bloody clashes as this nature of Alavanyo and Nkonya are bound to be a constant feature of our lives” (page 10 paragraph 3 line 8). Civilization presupposes respect for the law.
After the final determination of the suit in December 1970, the Nkonyas naturally entered their land and begun to re-farm on it. The Alavanyos again appealed against the Justice Francois‘s judgment of December 1970 at the Court of Appeal. In addition, the Alavanyos brought another action to the Ho High Court against the Nkonyas that they had allegedly flouted the order of interim injunction imposed in 1966.
The Ho High Court dismissed the action on the grounds that there was NO subsisting injunction and in the circumstance, the Nkonyas could not be held to be in breach of a non-existent order. On 4th December, 1975, Court of Appeal, Accra Suit No. 112/74, Justice J. A. Amissah (Presiding), Kingsley Nyinah and J. A. Annan ruled in favour of Nkonya and up-held the 1970 ruling by Justice Francois.
This was reported in 1976 in Ghana Law Report pages 194-203.
After the December 4, 1975 judgment, Mr. Joseph Foli and others of Alavanyo who appealed against the judgment of 1970, and also instituted an action against the Nkonyas for flouting the interim injunction of 1966, approached the Nkonyas, apparently to atone tenancy. The Nkonyas requested them to submit, in writing, the names of all Alavanyos farming on Nkonya land. The Alavanyos complied with this request by submitting names of seven farmers who had trespassed into Nkonya land, in a letter signed by Joseph Foli and Eugene Prikutse, dated 14th January, 1976.
This letter was addressed to Nana Agyattah IV Chief of Nkonya Tayi and his secretary Peter Akuffu.
Names of the farmers were as follows;
1. Joseph Foli
2. Kwasi Asigbetse
3. Winfred Donya
4. Eugene Prikutse
5. Aaron T. Kuma and
6. Korkor Sampede
Subsequent to this, each of these Alavanyos, whose names were submitted, atorned tenancy in the traditional manner and were therefore left free to maintain their farms on Nkonya land.
In 1980, the Alavanyos decided once again to re-litigate the matter, which they took to the Stool Lands Boundaries Commission chaired by Mr. Justice Amorin in Accra. The Commission gave judgment against the Alavanyos but ordered that the boundaries be re-demarcated- ( 25th January, 1980. Enquiry No. 7/1979.)
The Nkonyas felt dissatisfied with the commission’s Re-demarcation Order and therefore instituted action at the High Court, Accra to have that order quashed. Justice (Mrs.) Cecilia Koranteng Addo quashed the Stool Lands Boundary Settlement Commission’s order for re-demarcation on 2nd December, 1980.
She stated that, two previous rulings at the High Court and the Court of Appeal had up-held the accuracy of the Dr. Gruner Map of 1913 and thus settled the issue of the boundaries. Miscellaneous matter No. 91/1980
With all the above issues cited with references, unless one is up to some mischief, what again is there to cause any person to label this conflict as a dispute over land?
Any attempt to resolve this matter without recourse to these judgments will definitely end NOWHERE.
Why did the parties agree to take their dispute to court in 1951 for determination of ownership of their boundaries and patiently wait for 30 (thirty) years (1951 – 1980) without any fighting?
What brought about the conflict on May 7, 1983 until now had nothing to do with the land that had been the subject of litigation yet any act of banditry is quickly linked to land litigation.
What are the courts there for if their judgments are treated with contempt by one community leader who is unaware or disputes the existence of these court judgments?
Why is Government lethargic to take up her constitutionally mandated responsibility to verify these claims by Nkonya and rein in what Justice Francois aptly described the acts of the Alavanyos in his December, 1970 Judgment as brigandism (armed robbery in the forest)?
I stumbled upon a recent research work done by a Masters student from the University of Tampere, Belgium and feel emboldened to reproduce for readers, some of the evidence from National Archives and other sources he obtained during his field trip to Ghana.
University of Tampere
School of Social Sciences and Humanities
Tampere Peace Research Institute (TAPRI)
AGYEI PRINCE DUAH: Understanding the Persistence of the Nkonya-Alavanyo Conflict: An Nkonya Perspective.
Master’s Programme in Peace, Mediation and Conflict Research
Master’s Thesis, Supervised by Dr. Frank Möller. (March 2014)
A PETITION FROM THE DE-STOOLED ALAVANYO PARAMOUNT CHIEF ADDRESSED TO CHAIRMAN RAWLINGS IN 1991
A letter submitted to the Chief of Nkonya Tayi by Alavanyo citizens who had trespassed on Nkonya land.
A list of Alavanyo farmers who atorned tenancy as ordered by the High Court and testified in Court regarding Nkonya’s title to the land in dispute agaist the Alavanyo Chief and their other Alavanyo compatriots.
A copy of the High Court Judgment regarding Suit No. 28 – 35/61
The Grunner Map “KARTE DES SECHSHERRENSTOCKES” (BISHER KUNJAGEBIRGE GENANNT) 1913
IMAGE OF NKONYAHENE’S LETTER TO THE COLONIAL SECRETARY IN 1950
THE LETTER FROM THE ASST. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIRECTING NKONYA TO THE COURTS TO RESOLVE THEIR BOUNDARY DISPUTE
EXCERPTS FROM SUIT NO Tr. L 19/1953, ACCRA HIGH COURT, LANDS DIVISION
COPY OF APPEAL COURT JUDGMENT IN 1959
EVIDENCE THAT THE CASE INVOLVED THE STOOLS OF ALAVANYO AND NKONYA CONTRARY TO TSEDZE ATAKORA’S CLAIM ON JANUARY 9, 2015 AT KPANDO
With all these pieces of verifiable evidential material, who can then be in doubt as to the fact that the courts have dealt exhaustively with this matter?
Nkonya has always insisted that, the conflict that started on April 7, 1983 had nothing to do with land. No land is in dispute
We need to up our game as a nation that is serious about security and social order for the economic development of our people.
Paying lip service to seeking peace without backing it with well-thought out pragmatic steps is unhelpful
Otwenua Adamfo 8 years ago
No wonder nothing seems to be working well in Ghana under this good for nothing government. No serious people making serious attempts to solve problems. Always looking for shortcuts. So this government has no faith in the jud ... read full comment
No wonder nothing seems to be working well in Ghana under this good for nothing government. No serious people making serious attempts to solve problems. Always looking for shortcuts. So this government has no faith in the judicial system which has properly adjudicated the dispute from the lowest to highest level of the court system. One party refuses to abide by the decisions of the courts and flagrantly resorts to acts of violence, then government thinks that is enough grounds to take over the land and deprive the true owners the use of their land. And this is being hailed in some quarters as a well-thought out plan that will bring peace to the area. This is a classic example of the misuse of Article 37 (1) of the Directive Principles of State Policy which is being quoted to support the action being contemplated. Susan Collins Mark's words applies equally to government. it requires government to make peace by ensuring equal justice for all. The arm of government charged with this responsibility is the judiciary which has given its verdict.
If government and people who are purporting to be advising it think this is the right way to go, we leave to see. But trust me the land will forever remain Nkonya land even if government occupies it. Not a square inch of our land will be ceded to the other party. There may be the need for citizen vigilantes to watch over "government land" to prevent unlawful encroaching.
Boat 8 years ago
Why are you not enforcing the court rulings. Is Ghana becoming a failed state.
Why are you not enforcing the court rulings. Is Ghana becoming a failed state.
No government can take over the Nkonya-Alavanyo lands. The land has a demarcation between the two parties supported by court decisions right up to the Appeal Court (the highest court at the time of last ruling). All the gover ...
read full comment
I suggest Govt Build a 2nd volta University on the disputed land. It will in that sense benefit everybody including Non-Nkonyas and Non-Alavanyos
Wow! The government seems to want take a cheaper way out of this case, but will not be. There is no disputed land per se, as existing court judgemnent(s) seem to indicate.
Although government has the power and right to take ...
read full comment
Re: Stakeholders want govenment to take over disputed lands at Alavanyo/Nkonya, Peki/Tsito
I convulsed when I read Tim Dzamboe’s report on page 65 in the May 14, 2015 issue of the Daily Graphic with the above-mentioned cap ...
read full comment
No wonder nothing seems to be working well in Ghana under this good for nothing government. No serious people making serious attempts to solve problems. Always looking for shortcuts. So this government has no faith in the jud ...
read full comment
Why are you not enforcing the court rulings. Is Ghana becoming a failed state.
Is Ghana becoming a failed state
Where is the history on the land?