Editorial
Let’s find a lasting solution to land guards’ activities
- /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
&description=Let’s find a lasting solution to land guards’ activities', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
- Share
- Tweet /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 72
Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 72
&description=Let’s find a lasting solution to land guards’ activities', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
Land guards’ activities are increasingly posing a risk to private developers in urban areas and making it difficult for people to develop their land. Finding a lasting solution to this threat is necessary.
A group of people known as land guards attack and vandalise real estate developers and their projects.
Even though the majority of these private developers have legitimately acquired their land, these land guards intimidate, harass, threaten with all manner of weapons, and even beat their victims.
Due to the land guards’ avarice, some victims have even sustained cutlass wounds. While some land guards go around collecting digging fees and preventing labourers from working, others resort to using force to extort large sums of money from property owners.
People’s attempts to acquire and develop their parcels of land, especially those living in expanding urban communities, have become so frustrating, and the actions of these land guards have dashed the hopes of many.
The fact that people who legitimately acquired plots of land with the necessary documentation have had to abandon their projects out of fear of being killed by these land guards, as it has happened to some in the past, is extremely disturbing.
The initial purpose of the introduction of land guards was to safeguard the legitimate owners of lands, whether they be family, individual, or stool lands, from encroachments. However, some people have abused the situation to take advantage of helpless people and engage in multiple land sales.
Their actions are now more of an annoyance than a deterrent to encroachment. Some private developers, however, have turned to the courts to handle their cases to prevent them from losing their hard-earned investment.
The harassment of residents of the Amamole community in the Ga North District by land guards is a prime example of this. Residents were terrorised in the community and were forced to cry for protection and appeal to the Police and social intervention groups to help them.
Residents claim that these land guards forcibly took from them pieces of land they had purchased for more than 12 to 50 years with proper documentation, demolishing some buildings in the process.
The Spectator is worried that despite government measures to ward off land guards, they are still able to pursue their agenda. To avoid land disputes, individuals must search at the Lands Department before doing business on lands.
Also, those who parade themselves as land owners but in actual fact are crooks selling the same land in multiples should be reported to the appropriate authorities for the law to deal with them.
Let us make a concerted effort to ward off these land guards to enable individuals acquire parcels of land genuinely and be free to develop them so they can have a decent place to lay their heads.
We hope that the activities of land guards will sooner or later become a thing of the past.
Dear Editor,
Before we start blaming the government, the authorities and how bad our roads are, perhaps we should first ask ourselves what role we played in making our roads unsafe.
Road safety is often discussed as though it is solely the responsibility of the government and law enforcement agencies, neglecting our roles we play to make the roads unsafe.
While authorities have an important role to play, the behaviour of individual road users remains equally important.
A driver who speed, overtakes recklessly, uses phone while driving or drives when tired is making a decision that could affect many lives.
A motorcyclist who ignored traffic light and also refuse to wear a helmet, passengers who encourage the driver to speed and the pedestrians who crosses a busy road carelessly can also contribute to danger.
We must therefore develop a strong culture of personal responsibilities on our roads.
Drivers should obey speed limit, avoid distractions and ensure their vehicles are road worthy, passengers should also not encourage reckless driving simply because they want to arrive at their destination quickly whiles pedestrians must also exercise greater caution when crossing roads.
At the same time authorities must continue to improve road infrastructures, enforce traffic regulations consistently and educate the public about responsible road use.
Road safety cannot succeed through enforcement alone; it requires change in attitude. If each road user understand that another person’s life may depend on their decision, our road can become safer.
Let us not wait for another crash before we remember the value of life. Thank you for the space.
From Akwasi Aaron
Accra.
Dear Editor,
I was concerned by a point raised during a radio review about the growing expectation among some parents that once their children attend government schools, particularly under the Free SHS programme, the government must provide virtually everything they need.
This mindset deserves serious public discussion.
The introduction of Free SHS has undoubtedly lifted a significant financial burden from parents. Government is already absorbing substantial costs associated with the education of thousands of Ghanaian children. Students in public second-cycle institutions also benefit from provisions such as tuition support, meals and other essential services.
However, Free SHS should not be interpreted as free parenting. A parent should not expect the government to provide every personal item a child needs simply because the child attends a public school. Items such as mattresses, sponges, toiletries, clothing, chop boxes and other personal necessities should, where possible, remain part of the parent’s responsibility.
The same principle applies at the basic-school level. Government has a responsibility to provide quality education and create an enabling environment for children to learn. Parents, however, have an equally important responsibility to support their children’s education and welfare.
Government cannot and should not replace the family. When parents gradually transfer every responsibility to the state, we risk creating a culture of dependency in which citizens expect government to solve every personal problem. That is neither sustainable nor healthy for our development as a nation.
We must therefore appreciate the support government provides while recognising that education is a shared responsibility. Parents must continue to contribute according to their means, schools must do their part, and government must continue providing the necessary educational infrastructure and support. Rather than asking, “What else will government give us?” parents should also ask, “What can I do to support my child’s education?”
Free education is a public investment, not an invitation for parents to abandon their responsibilities. Ghanaians must therefore change the mentality that government must provide everything. The state can carry a significant portion of the burden, but the family must never surrender its responsibility.
Free SHS should make education more accessible not make parenting optional.
From Desmond Aidoo
Sowutuom
