Aspiring national chairman of the National democratic congress (NDC), Nii Lante Vanderpuye, has urged the government to engage the family following Cabinet’s decision to revoke Executive Instrument (E.I.) 144 relating to the Achimota Forest Reserve.

According to him on Thursday July 16, 2026 on Channel One TV, the family was not consulted before the decision was taken and should be involved in discussions to ensure an amicable resolution.

Mr Vanderpuye said although the revocation had already been announced, the government should begin talks with the family to ease growing concerns over the decision.

“I think the family has a case, but government must also engage the family. There must be some conversation that will make people feel relieved of the pressure that will come out of this particular decision,” he said.

Mr Vanderpuye, who said he is both a member of the government and the Owoo Family, acknowledged that the family was unhappy with the decision and expected discussions to take place in the coming weeks.

He noted that the family had previously donated large portions of land for national development, including land used for police and prison quarters as well as research facilities.

He cited an ongoing court case over land at Ajin Kotoku, where he said the previous government initiated an affordable housing project on land the family claims ownership of.

According to him, dialogue between the government and the family is necessary to protect the Achimota Forest Reserve while also addressing the family’s concerns, including compensation for lands their forefathers willingly released for the country’s development.

“The necessary discussions must be held so that government can preserve this ecological asset, while the family also contributes to the discussions and receives the necessary compensation,” he stated.

When asked whether Cabinet had consulted the Owoo Family before revoking E.I. 144, Mr Vanderpuye said he was unaware of any engagement.

“I can tell you for a fact that, as I sit here, I’m not aware. Yesterday, I called some members of the family and they were very bitter because they had not been consulted. They were taken by surprise by the decision,” he said.

He added that some members of the public were now blaming family members for a decision in which they had no involvement.

By: Jacob Aggrey
[13:30, 16/07/2026] Edem:

Former Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame has expressed disappointment with what he described as the court’s failure to compel the State to return the passport of his client, Hanan Abdul-Wahab, to the court registry.

Speaking to journalists after court proceedings today, Mr Dame explained that the passport had originally been deposited with the court as part of the bail conditions imposed on Abdul-Wahab.

According to him, the court had ordered that the passport be returned to the registry by July 14, after Abdul-Wahab completed an approved trip.

Mr Dame said the passport was not returned because it was allegedly seized by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) following Abdul-Wahab’s arrest.

“The order for the passport to return to the registry was actually given by the court,” he stated.

“If the court is no longer concerned about the compliance with its own earlier orders, I do not have any problem. At the appropriate time, when there is a need for him to travel, we will make an application to the court” he mentioned.

He maintained that his legal team did not need to file a separate application for the release of the passport because the issue, in his view, was the enforcement of the court’s earlier directive.

Mr Dame further argued that the judge acknowledged that EOCO had seized the passport but did not order the agency to return it to the court registry.

“The judge was concerned about the seizure of the passport by EOCO, but failed to order EOCO to return the passport to the registry of the court in compliance with the court’s own earlier orders,” he said.

He added that the Republic should not have to be “policed all the time” and called for what he described as the proper enforcement of court orders.

By: Jacob Aggrey