By Abdul-Razak Yakubu (ARY) Int. Development, Political & Governance Consultant
Land administration in Ghana has long been a contentious issue, sparking public debate over who should be the rightful custodian of the country’s lands. This debate stems from a myriad of challenges, ranging from the indiscriminate sale of land to the abuse of land management by traditional leaders, governments, and families. The question remains, should land ownership remain in the hands of chiefs and families, or should it rest with the Government of Ghana?
The Current State of Land Administration in Ghana
Ghana’s land tenure system is predominantly rooted in customary practices, with approximately 80% of land under the custodianship of traditional leaders and family heads. While this system honors the country’s rich cultural heritage, it has proven to be a significant obstacle to national development.
Chiefs and families often sell lands without due diligence, leading to disputes, overlapping claims, and land litigation. This lack of accountability undermines investor confidence, making it difficult for the country to attract large-scale investments, particularly in agriculture, real estate, and infrastructure. Moreover, the uncoordinated sale of lands has led to haphazard urbanization, complicating land-use planning and making governance at both local and national levels more challenging.
Comparing Ghana to Other Nations
Globally, countries that have centralized land management under state control tend to experience more structured and sustainable development. For instance:
Singapore: With the majority of land owned and managed by the government, Singapore has achieved remarkable urban planning, infrastructure development, and housing solutions. The state’s control has enabled the efficient allocation of land resources to meet the needs of its population and investors.
Rwanda: After decades of land disputes, Rwanda centralized land management under government authority. This reform not only reduced conflicts but also enhanced transparency, facilitated land registration, and attracted significant foreign investments.
On the other hand, countries where traditional leaders retain control over land often struggle with governance issues:
Nigeria: Like Ghana, a large portion of land in Nigeria is controlled by traditional rulers. This has resulted in similar challenges, such as land disputes, corruption, and difficulties in implementing urban planning projects.
South Africa: In rural areas where traditional authorities manage land, there have been reports of exploitative practices, resistance to development projects, and lack of accountability, hindering national progress.
The Case for State Control
Ghanaians including traditional stakeholders have also blamed past political actors who have taken lands for development purposes but ended up selling them for private use. This raises the debate further, under whose custody would lands be properly managed for the prosperity of all Ghanaians. I argue per existing evidence that the state is much more positioned to maintain fairness in the distribution of lands for national and private use. State control means proper planning, price controls, protection of lands, and other related land resources can be effectively managed. Private control of lands makes it extremely difficult for investors to acquire land with ease.
Given these examples, it is evident that government control of land can streamline administration, reduce conflicts, and promote equitable development.
In Ghana, state control would enable comprehensive Land Use Planning: The government could enforce zoning laws and develop urban and rural areas in a coordinated manner.
Investor Confidence: Centralized land management would provide a transparent and reliable system for investors, boosting economic growth.
Equity and Access: State control could ensure fair allocation of land for housing, agriculture, and infrastructure, benefiting all citizens rather than a privileged few.
A Call for Constitutional Review
To address the challenges of land administration, it is imperative for Ghana to consider a constitutional review that reclaims total land management and control by the government. This does not imply disregarding traditional authorities but rather integrating their input into a state-led framework that ensures accountability, equity, and sustainable development.
Ghana stands at a crossroads. The current system has proven inadequate in meeting the demands of a rapidly developing nation. It is time for policymakers, stakeholders, and citizens to engage in a constructive dialogue about the future of land custodianship in Ghana. The path forward must prioritize the collective good over individual interests, laying the foundation for a prosperous and well-planned nation. The question remains: are we ready to make the bold decision to place Ghana’s lands in the hands of the state for the benefit of all?
