Land Guards Take Over Tuba Irrigation Farm as Farmers Protest: A Deep Dive into Ghana’s Land Governance Crisis

Introduction: A Standoff in the Fields of Tuba

A tense and volatile situation has erupted at the Weija Irrigation Project in Tuba, within Ghana’s Greater Accra Region. Over 300 farmers, who depend on irrigated agriculture for their livelihoods, are engaged in a protest against what they describe as the illegal and forceful takeover of their farmlands by armed individuals known locally as “land guards.” This conflict, which has drawn national attention, is not an isolated incident but a symptom of deep-seated issues in Ghana’s land administration, the legacy of large-scale development projects, and the persistent challenge of land guard violence. This article provides a comprehensive, fact-based analysis of the Tuba dispute, exploring its historical roots, the legal and socioeconomic dimensions, and potential pathways to a just and lasting resolution.

The farmers allege that the transfer of their allocated irrigation land to a private property developer was unlawful, facilitated by officials within the Lands Commission. They report being chased off their farms at gunpoint, creating an atmosphere of fear and jeopardizing their primary source of income. Their appeal for intervention is directed at the highest levels of government, including the President and the Ministers for Food and Agriculture and Lands and Natural Resources. Understanding this crisis requires examining the complex interplay between state policy, customary land tenure, commercial interests, and the rights of vulnerable agricultural workers.

Key Points: The Core of the Tuba Farm Dispute

Location & Scale: The conflict centers on farmland within the Weija Irrigation Project scheme at Tuba, Greater Accra Region, affecting over 300 farmers.
Primary Accusation: Farmers accuse the Lands Commission of illegally transferring their irrigated farmland to a private developer, a transaction they did not consent to.
Method of Dispossession: The alleged transfer has enabled the deployment of armed “land guards” to intimidate and violently evict farmers from their plots.
Historical Land Allocation: The government acquired ~13,000 acres in 1974 for the Weija Dam project. In 1983, the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) designated about 8,000 acres for irrigation farming.
Alleged Land Reduction: Farmers claim that via an Executive Instrument in 2013, over 90% of the irrigated land was returned to “original landowners,” leaving only ~6% (approx. 480 acres) for farming activities.
Human Impact: Protesters warn of imminent loss of livelihoods, food insecurity, and heightened community tension if the matter is not urgently addressed.
Call for Action: Affected farmers are petitioning the President, Minister for Food and Agriculture, and Minister for Lands and Natural Resources for direct intervention and restoration of their rights.

Background: From State Project to Contested Land

The Weija Dam and Irrigation Scheme: A Historical Overview

To comprehend the current dispute, one must trace the land’s history. The Weija Dam, completed in the 1970s, was a major infrastructural project aimed at water supply, flood control, and irrigation development. In 1974, the Government of Ghana, exercising its eminent domain powers, acquired approximately 13,000 acres of land for this undertaking. This acquisition would have necessarily involved the displacement of existing land users and the reconfiguration of customary tenure arrangements under the state’s control.

In 1983, under the auspices of agricultural diversification and food security policies, the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) was mandated to develop and manage irrigation schemes. It earmarked roughly 8,000 acres of the acquired Weija land for structured irrigation farming. Farmers were presumably allocated plots under various tenancy agreements—likely as licensees or tenants of the state, through GIDA. For decades, this land formed the basis of a productive agricultural community in the peri-urban Accra landscape.

The 2013 Executive Instrument and the “Return” of Land

The critical turning point, according to the farmers, occurred around 2013. They allege that an Executive Instrument (EI) was executed, which resulted in the “return” of over 90% of the 8,000-acre irrigated farmland to its “original landowners.” The legal and conceptual implications of this “return” are profound. It suggests a reversal, or attempted reversal, of the 1974 state acquisition for a portion of the land, potentially re-vesting title in pre-acquisition customary stool or family holdings.

This action, if accurately described, created a dual and conflicting land tenure situation: the state (via GIDA) still considered the land under its irrigation management scheme, while a separate claim, backed by an Executive Instrument, was now held by other entities. This created a legal vacuum and a “tragedy of the commons” scenario where the authority to allocate and manage the land became contested. The farmers, who had invested labor and capital into their plots under the GIDA regime, found their security of tenure instantly undermined.

Analysis: Unpacking the Layers of Conflict

Land Tenure Insecurity and the Plight of “Squatter” Farmers

The Tuba farmers’ situation highlights the precarious position of agricultural tenants on state or formerly state-controlled land in Ghana. Their status is often ambiguous—neither outright owners nor formally recognized long-term lessees with transferable interests. When high-level policy decisions (like the alleged 2013 EI) are made without adequate consultation or compensation mechanisms for existing productive users, these farmers become extremely vulnerable. They are caught between the rock of state policy and the hard place of resurgent customary claims or commercial interests.

The term “squatter” is often pejoratively applied to them, but their presence is typically a result of past state invitation (via GIDA allocation) and their own investment. Their protest is fundamentally a defense of de facto property rights established through labor and time, against a de jure claim that disregards their economic and social stake.

The Menace of Land Guards: Private Violence in a Governance Gap

The involvement of “land guards” is not a random crime wave but a calculated strategy often employed in disputed land transactions. These are private, often armed, individuals or groups hired by a party claiming title to enforce possession. Their use represents a complete outsourcing of coercive power, bypassing the state’s monopoly on legitimate force. In Ghana, the phenomenon of land guards is a chronic problem, particularly in peri-urban areas where land values are skyrocketing.

Their tactics—intimidation, harassment, and violent eviction—create immediate fear and physical displacement. The farmers’ report of being chased with guns points to a serious breach of the peace and potential criminal offenses (assault, threats of death, property damage). Crucially, the deployment of land guards implies that the party claiming the land (the private developer) believes it has a legitimate, enforceable claim, or is willing to use extralegal means to establish de facto control regardless of the legal title. This points to a failure of law enforcement and land administration institutions to prevent such private violence.

Alleged Institutional Complicity and the Lands Commission

The farmers’ specific accusation against the Lands Commission is the most serious institutional dimension of this case. They allege that officers of this key state agency “unlawfully transferred” the land for “business sales strategy.” If true, this suggests a corrupt or grossly negligent act where public officials facilitated a land transaction that violated the existing rights of GIDA tenants and potentially the purpose for which the land was originally held in trust by the state (for irrigation development).

The Lands Commission’s mandate is to administer public and stool lands, ensure proper documentation, and prevent illegal sales. An allegation of its complicity in an illegal transfer, especially one leading to violence against farmers, would constitute a major governance failure. It transforms a land dispute into a potential case of state capture or abuse of office. A credible investigation into the chain of title for the disputed plots since 2013 is essential.

Socioeconomic Stakes: Beyond 300 Families

The protest’s significance extends beyond the 300-plus farmers directly involved. The Weija Irrigation Scheme contributes to the Greater Accra Region’s food basket, supplying vegetables and other produce to dense urban markets. The disruption of this production has ripple effects on food prices, urban food security, and local employment (including laborers, transporters, and marketers). The loss of these farms would not only impoverish the farming families but would also represent a significant loss of productive agricultural land in Ghana’s capital region, contradicting national goals of agricultural modernization and import substitution. The threat to livelihoods is therefore a broader socioeconomic risk.

Practical Advice: For Affected Farmers, Policymakers, and the Public

For Farmers and Community Leaders

Document Everything: Create a clear record. Gather all existing allocation letters, tenancy agreements, receipts, membership lists from farmer groups, and dated photographs of crops and farm infrastructure.
Formalize Collective Representation: Strengthen or form a recognized farmer association or cooperative. A unified body with elected leadership and a constitution is more credible in negotiations and legal proceedings than scattered individuals.
Pursue Official Channels Systematically: While protesting, simultaneously file formal complaints with the GIDA, the Lands Commission (regional and national), the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) regarding the alleged illegal transfer and the threat to livelihood.
Engage Traditional Authorities: If the “original landowners” are a traditional stool or family, seek mediated dialogue through recognized, neutral chiefs or the Regional House of Chiefs. Understand their claims and explore options for secure sub-tenancy or joint venture agreements that protect farmer investments.
Legal Recourse: Consult with legal aid services or NGOs specializing in land rights (e.g., the Ghana Center for Democratic Development, Landesa partners) to explore filing for an injunction to halt evictions and a declaration of their tenancy rights. A case for “acquiescence” or “estoppel” based on long-term occupation and investment may be relevant.
Prioritize Safety: While protesting, avoid direct violent confrontation with land guards. Document instances of intimidation with videos/photos (safely) and report every incident to the police, demanding written acknowledgement. The protest should remain peaceful to maintain moral high ground and public sympathy.

For Government Agencies and Policymakers

Immediate Moratorium: The Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources should immediately place a freeze on all transactions involving the disputed Tuba irrigation land until a full, transparent audit is conducted.
Independent Fact-Finding Commission: Establish a high-level, multi-stakeholder commission (including representatives from the Ministries of Food and Agriculture, Lands, Justice, GIDA, the farmer groups, and the alleged landowning stool) to investigate: the validity of the 2013 Executive Instrument; the chain of title post-2013; the process of the alleged sale to the developer; and the current status of GIDA’s management mandate.
Clarify the Legal Status of Irrigation Lands: This case exposes a critical ambiguity. The government must legally clarify whether lands acquired for specific public projects like irrigation are immune from “reversion” claims until the project is formally decommissioned by an Act of Parliament or appropriate instrument.
Enforce Against Land Guards: The Ghana Police Service, under directive from the Inspector General of Police, must proactively investigate and prosecute the individuals operating as land guards in Tuba. Their activities are a clear and present danger to public order.
Develop a Livelihood Protection Protocol: For all state-owned agricultural lands slated for re-allocation or disposal, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture must develop and enforce a protocol that guarantees security of tenure for existing productive tenants, including fair compensation for investments if eviction is unavoidable.

For Civil Society and Media

Sustained Monitoring: Continue to report on the situation, focusing on factual developments and the human stories. Avoid sensationalism that could inflame tensions.
Public Education: Run campaigns educating citizens on the legal status of land guards (they are not legal enforcement agents) and the proper channels for land dispute resolution.
Support Legal Aid: Mobilize resources to provide pro bono legal support to the farmer groups to navigate the complex land litigation process.
Advocate for Systemic Reform: Use the Tuba case as a catalyst to advocate for the full implementation of Ghana’s Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036), particularly its provisions against land guard activities and for transparent land administration.

FAQ: Common Questions About the Tuba Farm Conflict

What exactly are “land guards”?

In the Ghanaian context, “land guards” are private, often armed individuals or groups hired by a party claiming ownership of a piece of land to enforce possession, typically through intimidation, violence, and illegal eviction of occupants. They operate outside the law and are distinct from officially sanctioned security personnel. Their activities are a criminal offense under Ghana’s Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) and various sections of the Criminal Offenses Act.

Can the government really “return” land it acquired decades ago?

Yes, but under strict legal conditions. Land acquired by the state via compulsory acquisition (for a public purpose) does not automatically revert to previous owners. For the land to be “released” or “returned,” the original public purpose must have ceased, and a formal process must be followed. This typically requires a new Executive Instrument or legislative action that explicitly revokes the previous acquisition and re-vests title, often with compensation paid to the state. The legality of the 2013 Executive Instrument alleged by farmers hinges on whether the Weija Dam/irrigation project’s purpose had ceased for that specific parcel and whether proper procedures were followed.

What laws protect farmers on state irrigation schemes?

Farmers on schemes managed by GIDA typically operate under tenancy or license agreements. Their primary protection comes from the terms of that agreement and the administrative policies of GIDA. More broadly, they are protected under the Constitution of Ghana (1992), which guarantees the right to own property (Article 18) and prohibits arbitrary interference with one’s home or privacy (Article 17). The Land Act, 2020 also provides protections for lawful occupants and criminalizes the use of land guards. However, enforcement of these protections for tenants on public land is often weak.

Is this a common problem in Ghana?

Yes, this archetype of conflict is distressingly common, especially in rapidly urbanizing areas like Greater Accra, Ashanti, and Central Regions. The collision between state-acquired land, resurgent customary claims, commercial real estate development, and weak land administration creates recurring disputes. The use of land guards is a frequent, violent feature of these disputes. The Tuba case is notable for its specific setting within a major national irrigation project and the clear chain of historical events cited by the farmers.

What is the role of the Lands Commission in all this?

The Lands Commission is the statutory body responsible for the administration of public lands and stool lands, including their registration, management, and