Police accused of illegal demolition; IGP petitioned

A protracted land dispute at Teshie-Manet in the Greater Accra Region has escalated into a confrontation involving alleged encroachment, multiple arrests, the discharge of firearms and the demolition of property, with the landowner accusing the Ghana Police Service of interfering in a civil matter and siding with private developers.

Habib Musah Adams, a resident of Spintex-Manet, has petitioned the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and other authorities over what he describes as police overreach, intimidation and unlawful interference in his ownership and development of a 1.49-acre parcel of land he says he has peacefully possessed since 2012.

The dispute is currently before the High Court under Suit No. LD/0580/2026, filed by Adams in July 2026 against the alleged encroachers and other parties, including the Ghana Police Service, which he named as the sixth defendant.

Adams is seeking a declaration of title, an injunction and damages for trespass.

The High Court has meanwhile issued an interim injunction restraining the parties, including the police, from interfering with the disputed land or threatening Adams and his workers, according to documents cited in his petition.

Despite the pending civil proceedings and the injunction, Adams alleges that police officers have repeatedly intervened at the property in circumstances that have favoured the alleged encroachers.

Dispute over developed land

Adams says he took possession of the 1.49-acre property in 2012 and, over the years, fenced it, installed gates and constructed security and storage facilities.

The dispute intensified in 2025 when he discovered that a commercial building had been constructed on part of the property by Artin and Haykouhe Kassardjian, residents of Manet Ville, Spintex-Accra.

According to Adams, he attempted to stop the development but the construction continued.

He maintained that the Kassardjians did not directly engage him over ownership of the property, prompting him to pursue the matter through the courts.

The dispute subsequently widened to involve the police following a complaint concerning the alleged destruction of a wall belonging to the Kassardjians.

Police interventions begin

Adams’ petition gave a detailed chronology of the events that followed.

On July 11, 2026, the rear wall of the Kassardjians’ commercial property, which abutted Adams’ land, was found to have been demolished.

Adams said he did not report the incident to the police because he had no interest in the wall.

Three days later, on July 14, police officers from the Regional Headquarters arrived at Adams’ property and ordered work to stop.

A workman, Ali Yussif, was arrested. Adams said no charge was brought against him and that the immediate demand from the police was simply for construction work to cease.

The following day, July 15, armed officers from the Anti-Land Guard Unit returned to the site.

According to Adams, the officers fired warning shots and arrested six workers, including civil engineers and other tradesmen. The workers were released on bail later that day.

Adams contends that the arrests and use of firearms were intended to intimidate workers and halt development on the property.

Demolition attempt

The confrontation escalated further on July 28, when Adams said police officers escorted demolition equipment onto the disputed land accompanied by agents of the Kassardjians.

His representatives demanded to see a court order or other authority permitting the demolition, but none was produced, according to the petition.

The proposed demolition was subsequently aborted.  Yussif was, however, arrested again and later released without charge.

The repeated interventions, Adams argued, demonstrated that the police were becoming active participants in a dispute already before the High Court rather than maintaining neutrality between the parties.

Eleven workers arrested

The matter took another turn on September 3, when the Anti-Land Guard Unit arrested 11 workers at the property.

The group included engineers, carpenters, masons and a labourer.

Adams said the initial reason given for their arrest was a complaint that the Kassardjians’ wall had been broken.

However, the workers were subsequently brought before the court and charged with land guard activity and vigilantism.

Adams disputed the charges, arguing that the men were legitimate workers lawfully engaged at the site and had no connection with land guard activities.

Their bail application was refused and they were remanded.

Night-time demolition attempt

Two days later, on September 5, heavy equipment was seen approaching the property at night.

According to Adams, the operator claimed he had been sent by the police.

The incident was recorded on video, but the operator reportedly fled when confronted.

The most serious confrontation occurred on September 9, when Adams and members of his team were in court.

Adams said demolition work was carried out on his property in their absence.

The equipment operator, identified as Derrick, was apprehended by Adams’ men and initially handcuffed by a police officer.

However, according to the petition, officers from the Anti-Land Guard Unit subsequently arrived, released the operator and his machine, and instead detained Adams’ men.

The following day, the court declined to remand the men, an outcome Adams said raised further questions about the conduct of the police during the incident.

Adams alleges police overreach

Adams’ petition accused the police of using arrests and force to frustrate his development rather than investigate criminal conduct.

He questions why workers were repeatedly arrested without charges in some instances and why police allegedly failed to produce court orders or other lawful authority before attempting to stop construction or facilitate demolition.

He also raised concerns over the alleged discharge of firearms at the property, arguing that the use of armed officers against workers amounted to intimidation.

Another major allegation concerns the September 9 incident, when Adams said his men apprehended the demolition operator while work was allegedly being carried out on the disputed property.

He alleged that the police released the operator and detained his men instead, while refusing to record the alleged demolition as a crime.

Adams further questions the involvement of the Anti-Land Guard Unit, arguing that a unit established to combat land guard activities was instead used in circumstances involving demolition equipment and the arrest of workers.

Police rely on criminal complaint

The police have reportedly justified their intervention by reference to a criminal complaint concerning the alleged destruction of the Kassardjians’ wall and an alleged forcible takeover of land.

Adams rejected that explanation. He argued that he had no reason to destroy the wall because it did not prevent him from accessing his property.

He also maintains that the commercial building itself was constructed on his land without his consent.

According to Adams, the criminal complaint was therefore used to draw the police into what is fundamentally a civil dispute over ownership and possession.

He further points to the timing of the police interventions following the wall complaint as evidence, in his view, of a coordinated effort to disrupt his development and strengthen the position of the alleged encroachers.

These claims remain allegations and are yet to be determined by the High Court.

Wider legal implications

The dispute raises broader questions about the appropriate role of the police in land ownership disputes, particularly where a civil action is already pending before a court.

It also places the conduct of specialised police units, the use of force and the protection of property rights under scrutiny.

Adams has copied his petition to the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), the Regional Police Commander and the Registrar of the High Court, among other authorities.

He is calling for a comprehensive investigation into the conduct of the officers involved and disciplinary action against any personnel found to have acted unlawfully.

He is also seeking the withdrawal of what he describes as baseless charges against his workers and the prosecution of anyone found responsible for the alleged demolition.

Evidence submitted

Adams said his petition is supported by court documents, video recordings, photographs and medical reports relating to the incidents.

He and his legal team have indicated their readiness to assist investigators and provide the supporting material.

He is also seeking preservation of the status quo on the disputed property until the High Court determines the substantive case.

At the centre of the dispute remains the question of ownership and the competing claims surrounding the 1.49-acre property.

With the civil case still pending, the allegations against the police and the private parties have yet to be judicially determined.

The outcome of the High Court proceedings and any investigations into the police conduct could therefore determine not only the parties’ claims to the Teshie-Manet property but also whether the actions complained of amounted to unlawful interference in a matter before the courts.