By Mildred Siabi-Mensah
Kabenlasuazo (WR), July 11, GNA – The 13 communities which are likely to be affected by the proposed Petroleum Hub project have called on promoters of the project to ensure proper stakeholder consultation, particularly on land acquisition.
They claimed that Nzema lands did not belong to chiefs, but to families and individuals and so any such acquisition and negotiation should be fashioned out with designated family heads.
The Coalition of Concerned Nzemas, who made the call during a press conference, called for the re-registration of the landowners, families, and farmers whose lands or farms were inadvertently omitted from the registration process or incorrectly registered in other individuals’ names, to ensure accurate and rightful ownership documentation.
The Petroleum Hub affected communities, according to Mr. Ndede Kojo, leader of the Coalition, are Kabenlasuazo, Taking, Ahobere Ekyie, Egbazo, Nawule, Ndumsuazo, Bonyere, Ezlinbo, Alowuke, T1, Elena and Nuba.
Also, registration of lands belonging to the affected families, individuals, and chiefs’ and their families should be done in their names with the Lands Commission, instead of solely registering in the name of the chiefs and Awulae (Land Act).
Mr Kojo said, “We stand before you to represent the affected families and communities whose lands are being taken through compulsory for private led investment for build, own, operate in perpetuity. The approach of the investors is in contravention with the land use and spatial planning Acts 925 and Land Act 926.”
The Petroleum Hub Development Project had the potential to create 780,000 employment opportunities thus spurring economic growth, as stipulated in their proposal and Local Content Policy (L.I. 2204).
However, the Coalition insisted that rights and interests must be respected and protected, under Article 20 of the 1992 Constitution and the Land Act.
Mr. Kojo said, as such, we demand fair compensation, as required by law, and a mutually beneficial agreement, adequate and fair compensation for cash crops and other farm products (Article 20, of the 1992 Constitution), mutually agreed employment quota for our communities in line with local content policy.
Mr. Kojo said the affected communities sought for a bottom-up approach to negotiation, not top-down, which violates the Local Governance Act (Act 936, Sections 10 and 11).
The 20,000-acre demarcated enclave designated for the Hub posed a significant threat to livelihood and exceeded the capacity in terms of land size.
He noted that the proposed ‘live wall’ in the spatial plans would restrict access to farms and essential activities.
” We urgently request a reduction in the demarcated land to prevent it from being declared a free zone area, which would limit our access to our farms and livelihood and deprive chiefs, families, and landowners of their right to manage land for future private investment”.
“We caution our current traditional and political leaders against relinquishing our land without Proper negotiation, fair settlement and mutual agreement…
Instead, our family heads, individual landowners, and chiefs are willing to offer the entire land in phases, progressively, to ensure a mutually beneficial agreement.”
GNA
JP/CA