Claim of Chop Bar Operators Association misleading, says KMA
Kumasi, Sept 22, GNA - The Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) has described the claim by the Kejetia Chop Bar Operators Association that they were the rightful possessors of the inlet to the Kejetia lorry terminal opposite the Zoo as misleading and blatantly false. The KMA says it is the rightful owner and custodian of the Kejetia Lorry Park and the development of the park.
It is vested with the authority to develop its public sites and may partner any private developer to undertake such developments. The KMA was reacting to threats by the Kejetia Chop Bar Operators Association to take legal action against the KMA Chief Executive over the development of the inlet opposite the Zoo.
A statement signed by Mr Kwame Frimpong, the Public Relations Officer of KMA, said the assembly remained at all times committed to dialogue with any person or group of persons whose interests are affected by the review of its projects and may want to seek redress. Giving the background to the issue, the KMA said under the Kejetia Development Scheme, two sites were designated as eating-places.
The first is located at the outlet on the Bantama road and opposite the PZ area, while the second site is located at the inlet to the Kejetia lorry park opposite the Zoo.
It said the practice at the time was that traders' associations were given the option to develop sites for use by their members. The statement said the assembly discovered to its dismay that these traders' associations developed the sites without obtaining the proper authorisation from KMA.
It said for instance that under the Kejetia Redevelopment Plan, part of Kejetia was designated for eating or chop bars and the site was therefore given to the chop bar operators to develop for use as chop bars.
''To the dismay and disappointment of the KMA, the site was used by the chop bar operators for stores, shops and offices, contrary to what was initially agreed upon without permission and authority of the KMA.''
"Additionally no attempt was made to present an approved building plan as was required by law".