The National House of Chiefs has firmly rejected a recommendation from the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) to merge the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) with the Lands Commission. The House insists that the OASL, currently an independent constitutional body, must retain its distinct status under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources.
Historical Context of OASL’s Establishment
The decision stems from historical grievances and the specific reasons for OASL’s creation during the drafting of the 1992 Constitution. Member chiefs on the Consultative Assembly advocated for an independent OASL to address past mismanagement and lack of transparency in handling stool land revenue by the then-unified Lands Commission.
Key objectives for establishing OASL included efficient management of stool land revenue from sources like rent and royalties. It was also created to promote transparency and accountability in financial dealings, ensure fair distribution of revenue, protect stool lands, and support traditional authorities in land management. Crucially, it was designed to separate the management of stool land revenue from land ownership itself.
Reasons for Rejection: Protecting Chieftaincy Interests
The National House of Chiefs argues that the CRC’s recommendation undermines the fundamental purpose of OASL. They emphasize that the office was created specifically for chiefs and has since performed its functions credibly, ensuring funds benefit both traditional authorities and local development.
The House contends that merging OASL would relegate the critical issues of stool and skin lands to a secondary status. OASL’s role extends beyond mere revenue collection; it actively assists in the management of stool lands, including the establishment of Customary Land Secretariats and providing advisory services to chiefs.
Concerns Over Lands Commission’s Performance
A significant concern raised by the House relates to the current state of the Lands Commission. They point to numerous ongoing court litigations and garnishee orders affecting the Commission’s bank accounts, posing a substantial risk to stool land revenue if merged.
The chiefs are skeptical about integrating stool land management with state land management, citing the Lands Commission’s perceived inability to effectively manage state and vested lands, which constitute a smaller portion of Ghana’s total land area. Instances of delayed disbursement of ground rent and lack of proper records on vested land revenue further fuel these reservations.
Furthermore, the House recalls the 2008 merger of four land sector agencies under the Lands Commission Act. They argue this merger failed to achieve its intended efficiency gains and, in some cases, exacerbated existing challenges. The closure of district offices for services like land valuation, which were once accessible to clients, is cited as a negative consequence.
A Call for Strengthening, Not Merging
The National House of Chiefs maintains that the separation of OASL from the Lands Commission during the 1992 Constitution’s promulgation was a deliberate choice to enhance efficiency. The previous Lands Commission was overburdened with diverse responsibilities, including fisheries, forestry, mining, and land registration, which led to service delivery setbacks.
Instead of merging, the House calls on the government to strengthen the OASL. They propose enhancing its operational capabilities, granting financial clearance to recruit more staff, and expanding its mandate to encompass other customary lands. This, they believe, will better equip the office to manage the vast majority of Ghana’s landmass that falls under the customary sector.
Implications for Land Administration and Future Outlook
The National House of Chiefs’ firm stance signals a potential conflict with the CRC’s recommendations and may necessitate further dialogue with the government. Their rejection underscores the deep-seated importance of maintaining the autonomy of stool land administration for the benefit of traditional authorities and local development.
The House’s emphasis on the success and necessity of the current structure, encapsulated by their question, “If something is not broken, why do you fix it?” suggests they will vigorously defend the status quo. What remains to be seen is how the government will respond to this strong opposition and whether it will prioritize the concerns of the traditional leadership in its land administration reforms. The focus is now on whether the government will heed the call to resource and strengthen the OASL, or pursue the CRC’s merger recommendation, potentially leading to increased friction with chieftaincy institutions.
Leave a Reply