KMA ordered to pay compensation to demolition victims

 
From Sebastian Freiku, Kumasi.
The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has directed that the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) pay monetary compensation to victims of a demolition exercise undertaken by the assembly somewhere in August 2009.

The Commission, per the directive dated October 19, 2016 and signed by the Regional Director, Mrs. Mercy Larbi, said the proposed compensation should be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the demolished buildings to the complainants, in the interest of justice.

The KMA is also expected to instill discipline and ensure compliance by all developers regarding building regulations, to forestall the situation where buildings are demolished as having been built without the relevant permits, and recommended that sensitisation programmes should be carried out in this direction.

The directive follows the Commission's preliminary investigations on the strength of Article 218 (c), 17 (2), (3) and 18 (1) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 7 (1) of the CHRAJ Act (Act 456) into the matter lodged with it, in separate complaints by Mahamadu Ahamadu, Alhaji Abdullai and Sala Seidu, regarding the unacceptable demolition of their premises by the KMA.

Mahamadu Ahamadu, first complainant, recounted in a statement that he acquired a building plot, No. 16E block IV, at Sawmill Line at Oforikrom in the 1970s, which plot of land is situated along the banks of River Susan, for the construction of a 10-bedroom house for occupation by a family of 29.

The second complainant, Alhaji Abdullai, also indicated he acquired plot No. SP 9 Block XV in the said locality in the same period, and constructed a 16-bedroom house for occupation by 19 family members.

Sala Seidu, as the third complainant, said she acquired the plot in the 1970s, and built a 20-bedroom house, where about 30 people, including adults and children, lived.

All the complainants claimed their buildings were demolished in an exercise by the KMA on August 18, 2009, which they described, was discriminatory.

Launching into the preliminary investigation, CHRAJ depended on interviews, reports by the Survey Department of the Lands Commission, examination of the composite plan, report of the Town and Country Planning Department, and Site Inspection Report.

The CHRAJ, according to the report, on the totality of evidence gathered on the matter, found out that the said demolished buildings were legally acquired by the complainants, who paid all the relevant and required property rates among others, in compliance with Section 102 of the Local Government Act 462 of 1993.

The Commission also found out that 80 buildings, identified as having been illegally constructed and earmarked for demolition, but only eight, including those in dispute and subject matter for the complaint, were eventually demolished.

It observed that though the complainants failed to obtain relevant building permits before constructing the demolished buildings, contrary to Local Government Act 462, the demolition exercise, and eventual eviction, had deprived them of the place of abode where they had lived   since the 1970s, without any resettlement arrangement by the KMA.

CHRAJ was conclusive that it had found out that owners who had their buildings pulled down were duly paid some compensation, notwithstanding the fact that those buildings were built without building permits, hence the directives.