body-container-line-1
03.03.2011 Business & Finance

Consultant sues Airtel

03.03.2011 LISTEN
By Ghanaian Chronicle

The battle between Accra residents and telecommunications companies over the erection of masts in residential areas, due to its perceived health hazards, has reached its zenith.

Airtel Ghana Limited, a telecommunications company in Ghana, has been hauled before an Accra Fast Track Court for erecting a cell phone mast and a base station at Batsona in Tema, without the requisite authorisation from the city authorities.

In a writ filed by a communications consultant, Nat Lomo-Mainoo, on February 3, this year, he averred that at the time the defendant, formerly Zain Ghana Limited, erected the phone mast, it had no permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as required by the environmental laws of the country.

It further stated that contrary to the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462), the defendant constructed the mast without a permit from the Town and Country Planning Department of the Tema Metroplitan Assembly.

The writ, which was filed on behalf of the consultant by Fugar and Company Law Firm, indicated that the guidelines for the installation and operation of a mast, adopted in August 2006, required prior approval from the Radiation Protection Board, however, Airtel did not obtain the requisite license and approval from the Board.

Airtel, the writ claims, failed to conduct thorough community consultations with occupants of houses within 500 feet radius of the mast, as required by the said guidelines and the EPA, as a precondition for the grant of an environmental permit.

It stated that there were high tension electric cables installed by the Electricity Company of Ghana only few metres away from the mast, and that in the event that the mast falls on these wires or otherwise, as a result of structural inadequacies or natural occurrence, a lot of damage would be caused to the plaintiff and other adjoining land owners in the community.

It stressed: 'Phone masts situated in a residential area must comply with the following, possess a permissible maximum height of 35 metres, individual consultations with neighbours within 50 metres radius of the mast, group consultation with neighbours within 500 metres radius, one week notice to participants before group consultation, however, Airtel flouted all those requirements.'

Therefore, the plaintiff is seeking a perpetual injunction restraining Airtel from further operating the mast, and punitive damages for the willful violation of public statutes, namely the Environmental Assessment Regulations, the Local Government Act, the Radiation Protection Regulations, and the National Communications Regulations.

body-container-line