The Nungua Stool has cautioned the public and land litigants not to drag Mr Benjamin Kwame Danso, a Board Member of the Lands Commission, into its ongoing Nmai Djor lands litigation.
Nii Borteyfio Borteykwei Afadi-Nsro I, the Chief of Nungua Nkpor, gave the caution at a press conference.
It described, as unfounded allegations by their opponents, the Okpelor Sowah Din Family of Teshie, to tarnish the image of Mr Danso, who is also the Krowor Constituency Chairman for the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC).
“Efforts to malign his reputation appear calculated and are entirely without merit. The stool affirms its full confidence in Mr Ben Danso and condemns any attempts to use his name to distort the facts,” it stated, adding that the board member has not claimed ownership of the land in question in his personal capacity.
Touching on Nmai Dzor lands, the Nungua Stool stated that it has taken note of recent public statements issued by the Okpelor Sowah Din Family of Teshie concerning the ownership of lands within the Nmai Djor area.
It added that such statements were not supported by history, custom or law, noting that “The Stool, therefore, finds it necessary to provide a clear and factual response for the benefit of the public, the media, and relevant state institutions.”
It explained that the Nmai Djor lands were part of the ancestral and customary lands of the Nungua Stool, stressing that this position was not only rooted in long-standing tradition but also confirmed by official records at the Lands Commission.
“Furthermore, the superior courts of Ghana have issued decisions that affirm the Nungua Stool as the rightful allodial owner of these lands. These judgements remain unchallenged and fully enforceable. The suit number is civil appeal number J4/10/2019,” it indicated.
The stool emphasised that it was not a party to some Supreme Court cases that their opponent sought to rely on to advance their claims, adding that “the decision in question does not grant ownership of the Nmai Djor lands to the Sowah Din Family.
Their inability to produce a judgement plan to show the extent of land covered by that ruling as confirmed by the Supreme Court Registry further demonstrates that the judgement does not support the narrative they have presented to the public.”
