The demolition of unauthorised structures along the La Beach, popularly known as Labadi or La Pleasure Beach, in Accra, over the weekend has generated considerable public debate, particularly over the manner in which the exercise was carried out.
Armed military and police personnel reportedly stormed the beachfront at about 4:30 a.m. and ordered occupants to vacate the area within 30 minutes, before the demolition commenced. Several structures, including bars, shacks and other commercial installations were subsequently reduced to rubble.
The exercise, undertaken with the involvement of the National Security Secretariat, has been justified as an administrative and security clearance to remove unauthorised structures and address encroachment around the beachfront. It has also been linked to concerns about the protection of facilities around the Labadi Beach Hotel and La Palm Royal Beach Hotel.
The Chronicle supports the removal of unauthorised structures from public and strategically important spaces. However, we believe that the manner in which such exercises are conducted matters just as much as the objective being pursued.
If, as some of the affected occupants have alleged, they were not given adequate notice before the demolition, then the operation raises legitimate questions about fairness and due process. Security considerations cannot become a blanket justification for treating citizens without regard to their property interests or legal rights.
We are informed that some of the affected persons have commenced legal action challenging their removal. If that is indeed the case, the state must allow the courts to determine the issues before them. Any person found to have unlawfully occupied public land must face the appropriate legal consequences, but enforcement must remain within the confines of the law.
We are equally concerned by threats issued by some of the affected occupants, following the demolition. Threatening violence or harm to the wider public is unacceptable, regardless of the grievances involved. Those who made such threats must be identified and dealt with according to law. Citizens have every right to challenge the demolition through the courts, but no one has the right to threaten the safety of the public.
Beyond the demolition itself lies an even more disturbing national question: how did portions of Ghana’s coastline, traditionally regarded as public recreational spaces, become increasingly commercialised and occupied by private interests?
For years, portions of the country’s coastline that were traditionally open spaces have been occupied by bars, clubs, restaurants, shacks and other commercial structures. Some of these developments have reportedly been facilitated through arrangements involving traditional authorities and private interests.
This raises serious questions about the management of stool lands and coastal spaces. Traditional authorities have an important role in land administration, but their actions must be reconciled with national planning, environmental protection, public access and the broader public interest.
Virtually every available public space is increasingly being viewed as an opportunity for commercial exploitation, even where that space could serve a broader recreational and social purpose.
It is unfortunate that spaces, which could provide affordable leisure and contribute to the health and social wellbeing of citizens, are increasingly being converted into commercial ventures, sometimes requiring members of the public to pay substantial amounts to enjoy access.
In our view, Accra’s beaches should not become the exclusive preserve of those who can afford to pay for commercial services. They are part of the country’s natural heritage and must be managed in a manner that balances legitimate commercial interests with public access and the wider national interest.
Traditional authorities must also exercise greater caution when entering into arrangements involving beachfront lands. Where such transactions have implications for public access, national assets, environmental protection or urban planning, there must be meaningful engagement with the relevant state institutions.
The state, for its part, must use the La Beach operation as an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of developments along Ghana’s coastline. The objective should not simply be to demolish structures today and allow new ones to emerge tomorrow under different arrangements.
We are also mindful of the need to protect state-owned assets, including the Labadi Beach Hotel, which remains an important hospitality facility. Encroachment and activities that compromise the security, commercial viability or reputation of such facilities cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. Nevertheless, the protection of state assets must go hand in hand with transparency and due process.
The Chronicle, therefore, commend the security agencies for taking action against unauthorised structures, but urge them to ensure that future exercises are conducted in a manner that respects the law and the rights of affected persons.
The La Beach demolition should mark the beginning of a broader national conversation about who controls Ghana’s beaches, who benefits from their commercialisation and how these valuable spaces can be preserved for present and future generations.
Ghana cannot afford to turn every public space into a commercial venture before remembering that it belongs to the public. The Chronicle supports the enforcement action. But enforcement must be lawful, transparent and fair.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
