 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
COURT CASES > Center for Public Interest Law 1.0 Mining Communities Related Cases 1.1 Nana Kofi Karikari & 44 Others Vrs Ghanaian Australian Goldfields Limited In this
case the Plaintiffs are all residents and owners of buildings /houses
in a village called Nkwantakrom near Tarkwa in the Western Region
of the Republic of Ghana. The Defendant is a mining company incorporated
under the laws of Ghana and granted a mining concession in Tarkwa
including the area occupied by the Plaintiffs. The defendant company
demolished the buildings/houses belonging to the plaintiffs in Nkwantakrom.
The demolition exercise was carried out without resettling the Plaintiffs
or paying them compensation for their demolished buildings arguing
that the Plaintiffs put up those buildings in their concession with
the intension of attracting compensation from the defendant. The Plaintiffs in this case are all residents and owners of buildings /houses in a village called Kobeda near Tarkwa in the Western Region of the Republic of Ghana. The Defendant is a South African mining subsidiary incorporated under the laws of Ghana and granted a mining concession in Tarkwa including the area occupied by the Plaintiffs. The defendant company in order to make way for their mining operations, demolished the buildings/houses belonging to the plaintiffs in Kobeda. The company paid compensation to some residents whose houses were demolished but has refused to pay compensation to the plaintiffs for the demolition of the buildings/houses.
1.3 Center for Public Interest Law and (2) Center for Environmental Law v (1) Environmental Protection Agency, (2) Minerals Commission, (3) Bonte Goldmines Ltd. Bonte Gold Mines Ltd. a Canadian owned company which has been operating in Ghana for well over 10 years closed its operations along river Bonte at Bonteso in the Ashanti Region. It took just about one week for the company to complete its liquidation process without following the due processes for mine decommissioning, such as posting of bonds for the reclamation of lands destroyed as a result of the company’s operations. The company also failed to give the workers notice of its intention to liquidate. The result was that the company’s workers were not paid their wages. Farmers whose lands were affected by the operations of the company also received no compensation. The company closed down with debts of about US$18 million owed to various state institutions and private companies. It is
the view of CEPIL, that the citizens of the country are entitled to
a clean healthy and well protected environment. Also the Law Enforcement
Agencies should be accountable for their in action in not ensuring
that Bonte Goldmine Ltd did the right thing. 2.1 GAFCO Workers Union v Ghana Agro-Food Company (GAFCO) Limited, Tema In December 2003, as a result of strike action by the workers, the Defendant company summarily dismissed all the unionized workers (numbering 500). Subsequently, the Defendants agreed in principle to reinstate the workers on condition that they all reapply for their positions. In a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the mother union, management and Government, the Defendants undertook to: (a)Re-employ about 350 workers, but without payment of bonuses for that year, and that salaries would only be payable from the date of re-employment; (b) about 150 of the workers will be considered temporarily laid off but would be re-employed when the financial position of the company improves; and (c) the re-employed workforce would be bonded to be of good behaviour for 6 months and would undertake to work together with the company to promote and maintain a peaceful and orderly industrial environment. The Defendant company failed to honour the agreement. Instead, the Defendants embarked on a secret employment of new labour force from outside. The case
is before the Appeal Court. 3.1 Issa Iddi Abass V Accra Metropolitan Authority (Ama) & Another Over 30,000 dwellers at Agbogbloshie Market- a suburb of Accra, Ghana, referred to as “Sodom and Gomorrah” are faced with a planned forced eviction by the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA)-the city authorities responsible for Accra without alternative accommodation/relocation. The eviction is to pave way for the execution of the Korle Lagoon Ecological Restoration Project (KLERP). The KLERP is a Government of Ghana project being implemented by the Ministry of Works and Housing for AMA and funded jointly by the Government of Ghana, Kuwait Fund for Arab and Economic Development, the Arab Bank for International Development and the OPEC fund for International Development. Following this disturbing information received by the Center for Public Interest Law (CEPIL), a human rights fact-finding-process was started in October 2000 into the KLERP’s potential of violating certain of the fundamental human rights of those to be affected. The report revealed, among others, that, the dredging company had pulled down some structures without compensation, there was no provision or clear -cut policy on relocation/resettlement or compensation for those to be displaced and lastly the project proponents intend using the Law enforcement and security agencies to evict the squatters. Based on this report CEPIL decided to assist the squatters to remedy the planned forced eviction and to in particular evaluate the planned eviction in relation to Ghana’s obligations and commitments under existing international human rights laws, domestic laws and present human rights guidelines on forced evictions and development -based displacements. Series of meetings and consultations were held between squatters and the project authorities to fashion out programmes on how to mitigate the effect of the project on those to be affected. These meetings yielded no favourable outcomes for both parties hence, AMA, issued a two - week eviction notice to the squatters. The eviction notice contained no reference to any plans to resettle or compensate the squatters whose properties or business were likely to be destroyed in the course of the planned eviction. The squatters considered the ultimatum as being too short and contended among others that the planned action by AMA if carried out would violate their rights to (life, property, dignity, education of their children and privacy of home among others). Under the circumstances, the squatters instructed CEPIL to initiate Court action against AMA. Subsequently, a suit was filed by CEPIL, for and on behalf of the squatters in an Accra High Court on 31/05/02.Among the reliefs sought by the squatters were an injunction restraining the AMA and for that matter the Government from effecting the eviction and a declaration that their Constitutional rights would be violated if the eviction is allowed to proceed in the manner contemplated by the authorities. The High Court refused their application for interim injunction but the substantive declaratory relief sought by them is still pending before the Court of Appeal. Ruling
3.2 Evans Mills and 101 Others V. Accra Metropolitan Assembly On 24th September 2001 the Accra metropolitan Assembly ( AMA}, the city authorities responsible for Accra issued a one week eviction notice to a group of about 100 pig farms without providing them alternative site to remove their pig farms or face demolition. The pig farmers complained among others that the one-week notice is too short and further that, the demolition if carried out in the manner contemplated by the AMA, would destroy their life- long investment. Under the circumstances, the pig farmers initiated a court action, through CEPIL, against the AMA. Among the reliefs sought by the pig farmers was an injunction to restrain the AMA. from carrying out the demolition exercise. Notwithstanding notice of the pending court action against the AMA, it proceeded with swiftness to demolish the farms as planned. Although five (5) years have passed since the demolition, the victims are still left to suffer the hardships and loss of property without any support from the perpetrators or the Government. The case is still pending in an Accra High Court. CEPIL will continue to represent the pig farmers in Court. 3.3 Planned Forced Eviction Of 7000 Settlers In Digya National Park, Suspended. In March 2003, about 7000 settler fishermen in the Digya National Park in the Afram Plains District of Ghana were issued an eviction notice by the Afram plains Regional security Committee, Afram Plains District security Committee and the Traditional authorities. The eviction notice was without provision for relocation, resettlement or in accordance with internationally accepted laws on forced evictions. The Residents Sought CEPIL’s intervention to halt the planned forced eviction which according to them when allowed to proceed in the manner planed by the authorities, the eviction will violate heir rights to property, human dignity, shelter and subsistence, among others. CEPIL wrote a protest letter to the minister of lands and forestry, who is responsible for the Forest Reserves on which the community has been living for the past twenty years. CEPIL used both International Human Rights Law and arguments from Center on Housing Rights and Evictions (Cohre’s) Manual. The Eviction was suspended until April 2006 when the settlers were forcefully evicted by the officials of Forestry Commission. In a hurry to leave the land, many of the evictees were forced into a boat thereby exceeding its sitting capacity. This resulted in a boat disaster which led to the death many people. CEPIL filed a suit in the Fast Track Court against the Ministry of Lands and Forestry and Attorney General for an order of Prohibition on behalf of the settlers. Hearing commences on 16th October, 2006. 3.4 Nii Abbey and others v Ga District Assembly and Attorney General This case involves a group of settlers at Madina (a suburb of Accra) numbering about 650 who were unlawfully and forcefully evicted from their premises by the Ga District Assembly of Accra without notice and without relocating the residents. Some of the members lived outside the area, whiles others were living on the same land where they carry out business. The eviction exercise has resulted in the destruction of property, loss of business, dwelling places and livelihoods The land occupied by the evictees is within the jurisdiction of the Ga District Assembly, the local authority responsible for the area. The District Assembly Task Force assisted by some policemen carried out the eviction and demolition of the structures of the occupants of the area. The evictees engaged in various kinds of economic activities on the land namely, dress making, textile designing, soap making, kente weaving, carpentry, auto mechanic works, welding, and also operates chop bars, drinking bars, and communication centers. Some of the evictees also live on the land with their families. CEPIL has now finalised the court documents for the test case on forced evictions and has filed the suit before the High Court Accra. 3.5 Emmanual K. Oduro & ors Vrs Attorney General and Ghana Railway Corporation CEPIL has also filed a motion on behalf of about 770 railway squatters who have been threatened eviction by the railway authorities. The case was filed on 8th August, 2005 in Fast Track Court and a date is yet to be fixed for hearing. The facts of the case is that on May 2005 the Ministry of Habours and Railways issued a warning to all squatters and traders along the railways to quit or face forceful eviction. The squatters are numbering about 770 adults and over 2000 children who have stayed and traded along the boarders of the railway lines for period ranging between 15 -20 years. Some acquired the land from the railway authorities and have been paying rents to the authorities from time to time. CEPIL is seeking compensation for the squatters. 3.6 The Republic vrs The Commissioner, Customs Excise and Preventive Service, Ex parte Ghana National Association of Poultry Farmers This is a class action by the Plaintiffs who are an Association of about 1,000 Poultry Farmers. In or about February 2003, the Government of Ghana in order to alleviate the economic hardships of the domestic poultry industry, proposed to impose an additional duty of 20% on all imports of finished products into the country. Following this, a law was passed by Parliament which came into force in April 2003. Upon the Act coming into force, the Respondent on 7th May 2003, issued an order requesting all customs officers at the various Ports and Stations to apply the increased duty. Five days later after the Respondents’ letter of 7th May, the Respondent issued another directive - suspending the implementation of the increased duties. Despite several requests from the Applicants’, the Respondents’ failed and refused to apply to increased duties, thereby ineffect, suspending the operation of an Act of Parliament. Ruling
|
Click
here to download 
|
Center
for Public Interest Law. Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved. |