Posted on:
www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw
Owusu
Friday, December
23, 2016
A Land Court in Accra has ordered the
government to resume the payment of compensation to claimants in the Volta
Basin Flooded Areas of the Volta Region.
The court, presided over by Justice Anthony
Oppong, held that it was unlawful for the government to halt the payments in
2013 merely based on recommendations made by then Sole Commissioner Justice Yaw
Apau - now with the Supreme Court - who investigated judgement debts and other
frivolous payments under C.I. 79.
Between 2009 and 2012, about GH¢71
million was paid to the various claimants by the government after a negotiated
settlement, but the disbursement of the remaining GH¢67 million was put on hold
on the instructions of the Sole-Commissioner; and the government announced
later that it was dealing with discrepancies in the payments.
Mahama Adamant
However, since 2013 the Mahama
administration refused to resume the payments, compelling the claimants to go
to court to force the government to honour its obligation under the negotiated settlement.
Cabinet in July 2008 had approved a consolidated
amount totaling GH¢138 million for various stools/families in Pai, Apaaso,
Makango, Ahmandi and Kete Krachi Traditional Areas, and about 57 groups were
said to have benefited from the amount.
As a result, the claimants, including
chiefs and people from Krachi, Pai, Tapa, Afram Plains, Nkomi-Sene, Makango and
Apaaso, sued the Attorney General and the Lands Commission to trigger the
resumption of the compensation payments.
Misconceived Action
When the case started, the Lands
Commission, which is the body overseeing the payments, raised preliminary
objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case at all, but
the action was dismissed as ‘misconceived.’
The case then went to full trial where
the plaintiffs, led by Messrs Kwasi Owusu Yeboa and Daniel Owusu Nyampong, insisted
that the government breached the terms of the negotiated settlement and urged
the court to reverse the decision to suspend payment.
They also argued that it was unlawful for
the Sole-Commissioner to recommend that the payments be halted without
following properly laid down provisions.
Defendants’ Position
Both the AG and Lands Commission (as
defendants) had argued among other things that once adverse findings had been made
against some of the people involved in the claims, they needed to seek redress
at the Court of Appeal before they could continue to file for the rest of the
claims.
They insisted that the plaintiff’s cause
of action was premature, even though the defendants admitted the existence of a
negotiated settlement and part of the amount already disbursed.
The commission further held that those
the adverse findings were made against should have gone to the Court of Appeal
to seek redress instead of the High Court.
Court’s Decision
In his judgement, Justice Oppong said
that the government White Paper covering the Sole-Commissioner’s report had no
binding power on the court in its current state.
He said all the findings leading to the recommendation
of the suspension of the rest of the payments assumed the character of a High
Court judgement after six months of the release of the report, and said the
recommendation could not be binding on the court to decide whether the payment
should be resumed.
The court also held that the terms of
reference of the Judgement Debt Commission also made reference to inordinate
payments, but the category under which the claimants’ case fell could not be
said to be inordinate payment of public funds since it was a negotiated
settlement at the instance of the government.
Negotiated Settlement
“How can a negotiated settlement between
the government and a powerless claimant be said to be inordinate to the extent
that the Sole-Commissioner can recommend that it should be stopped?” the judge
queried, adding “the negotiated settlement represents a valid contract between
the government and the claimants.”
The court therefore ordered that “the
negotiated settlement concluded in 2008 between the government and the
plaintiffs under E.I. 98 of 1974 as amended by E.I. 67 of 1975 in pursuance of
certain tranches of compensation payment which were made by the government to
them was still valid and legally binding.”
Apart from a cost of GH¢40,000 awarded in
favour of the claimants, the court also slapped the plaintiffs with GH¢10,000
compensatory damages.