East Legon Developer Remand: A Critical Test for Ghana’s Property Rights and Criminal Justice

The remand of a prominent Accra property developer has ignited a fierce national debate about the boundaries between civil commercial disagreements and criminal prosecution in Ghana. The case of Carlos Allston, a registered landowner in East Legon, raises profound questions about due process, property rights, and the potential for misuse of the criminal justice system to resolve what many legal observers assert is a purely private, civil conflict. This comprehensive analysis unpacks the facts, explores the legal principles at stake, and provides guidance for property owners and investors navigating Ghana’s complex real estate landscape.

Introduction: The Core Controversy

In January 2026, the remand of Mr. Carlos Allston, a bona fide landowner and developer, following allegations of trespass on his own property, sent shockwaves through Ghana’s legal and business communities. The incident transcends a single property dispute; it strikes at the heart of constitutional protections against arbitrary detention and the fundamental principle that criminal law should not be a tool for private commercial advantage. This article dissects the East Legon case to understand how a dispute over adjacent land, separate from completed sales, led to criminal charges and remand, and what this precedent means for the rule of law and property security in Ghana.

Key Points: The Case at a Glance

• The Dispute: Centers on a small, adjacent plot of land owned by developer Carlos Allston, not on the seven-unit condominium units already sold and occupied by buyers, including Wise Horgli.
• The Trigger: After failed negotiations to purchase the adjacent land, the complainant, Wise Horgli, initiated police petitions and criminal complaints (trespass, threat of injury) instead of pursuing civil remedies.
• The Remand: Despite producing a Land Title Certificate and cooperating with police, Allston was remanded for six days on misdemeanor charges, while third parties allegedly occupied his disputed property.
• The Legal Alarm: Critics argue this sets a dangerous precedent where criminal procedure is weaponized to dispossess a lawful owner without a civil court judgment, undermining due process and constitutional property rights.
• The Systemic Risk: The case highlights vulnerabilities in the system where private parties might leverage police and prosecutorial discretion to gain commercial leverage in civil disagreements.

Background: Chronology of the East Legon Land Dispute

To understand the legal firestorm, a clear timeline of events is essential, separating the resolved sales from the ongoing conflict.

The Established Sales and Occupancy (2021-2024)

Mr. Allston, as the registered freehold proprietor with a valid Land Title Certificate, developed a seven-unit apartment block. Between 2021 and 2024, he sold three two-bedroom units to Mr. Wise Horgli and his associates. The remaining four units were sold to other clients, including two units (a penthouse and a two-bedroom) to an associate of Mr. Horgli. Crucially, all purchasers, including Mr. Horgli and his associate, have taken possession and continue to occupy their lawfully purchased apartments without any interference from Mr. Allston. The dispute does not concern these sold and occupied units.

The Source of the Conflict: The Adjacent Plot

The contentious issue involves a separate, smaller parcel of land adjacent to the apartment block. This land was never part of any sale agreement to Mr. Horgli or his associates. It was developed by Mr. Allston for his personal use and future investment. Prior to any litigation, Mr. Horgli and his associate, through a mediator, attempted to purchase this adjacent plot. Their mediation effort itself acknowledged they did not own the land. The negotiations collapsed when they could not meet the asking price.

Shift to Criminal Complaints

Following the failed negotiations, Mr. Horgli resorted to filing repeated police petitions and criminal complaints rather than initiating a civil lawsuit for declaration of title or specific performance. Key allegations include:

• A trespass complaint at East Legon Police Station, alleging Mr. Allston threatened him on the property on December 30, 2025.
• An earlier incident on March 12, 2025, where Mr. Horgli allegedly assaulted Mr. Allston at the police station by biting his finger and injuring his head.

The case was escalated to the Ghana Police Service’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) on January 14, 2026, leading to Mr. Allston’s arrest on charges of trespass and threat of injury.

Court Proceedings and Remand

On January 21, 2026, Mr. Allston was arraigned before the Circuit Court 1 in Adenta. During his charge statement, he:

• Denied entering any of the units sold to the complainant or others.
• Produced his original Land Title Certificate for the disputed adjacent land.
• Denied any intention to demolish or damage the apartment block.

Despite this, and despite his voluntary cooperation and documentation, the court remanded him into custody for six days. He was later granted bail on January 27, 2026, in the sum of GH¢100,000. The criminal trial is scheduled to commence on April 1, 2026. Concurrently, it is alleged that associates of Mr. Horgli entered and occupied the disputed adjacent building, fitting it out as an office, allegedly through intimidation.

Analysis: The Legal and Constitutional Quagmire

The Allston case is a textbook example of the dangers inherent when criminal processes are deployed to settle what is, at its core, a contest over land ownership and commercial negotiation. The analysis must separate the emotive narrative from the hard legal principles.

1. The Nature of the Underlying Dispute: Civil, Not Criminal

Ghana’s legal system, like most common law systems, maintains a clear distinction. A civil dispute involves conflicts between private parties over rights, obligations, and remedies—such as a dispute over title to land or breach of a sales contract. The appropriate forum is the civil court, seeking declarations, injunctions, or damages. A criminal offense is an act or omission that violates a law of the state, prosecuted by the state (through the Attorney-General) to punish wrongdoing and protect public order. The core question here is: what is the “actus reus” (guilty act) of trespass or threat when the accused is the registered owner of the land?

2. The Misuse of Trespass and Threat Charges

Trespass to land is the unlawful entry onto the land of another. A fundamental element is the lack of lawful authority or ownership. If Mr. Allston holds a valid, registered Land Title Certificate, his presence on that land is presumptively lawful. The prosecution must therefore disprove his title beyond reasonable doubt, a near-impossible task if the title is genuine and registered under the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 152). Using a trespass charge to force a resolution on a disputed title reverses the burden and attempts to use the criminal court as a de facto land tribunal. Similarly, a “threat of injury” charge must relate to a credible, imminent threat of unlawful violence, not a assertive assertion of property rights during a commercial disagreement.

3. The Remand as a Form of De Facto Dispossession

This is the most critical and alarming consequence. By remanding the registered owner, the state effectively:

• Restrains him from accessing, using, or defending his property while the criminal case is pending.
• Creates a power vacuum on the ground, which the opposing party’s associates allegedly filled by occupying the building.
• Achieves in weeks what a civil court would deny: a change in factual possession without any judgment on the merits, without compensation, and without the owner having his day in court on the central issue of title.

Legal observers correctly warn this resembles a private enforcement of property claims via state coercion. The constitutional right to property (Article 18, 1992 Constitution) and the right to due process (Article 19) are rendered hollow if a lawful owner can be jailed and dispossessed based on the complaint of a commercial adversary without a prior adjudication of title.

4. Why Not Civil Remedies?

The complainant had clear civil avenues:

• Action for Declaration of Title: A civil suit asking the court to determine who owns the adjacent land.
• Injunction: To prevent Mr. Allston from developing or using the land pending determination of title.
• Specific Performance: To compel a sale if a valid contract existed (which the mediator’s involvement suggests was not finalized).

The strategic preference for criminal complaints suggests a desire to harass, intimidate, and impose immediate costs (legal fees, loss of liberty, business disruption) on the opponent to force a settlement favorable to the complainant, bypassing the slower, costlier, and less certain civil process.

5. Systemic Implications for Investment and the Rule of Law

If this pattern is tolerated, it erodes the foundational principle of security of tenure. Investors and developers rely on the certainty that a registered title is defendable in court, not that they can be jailed on the word of a disgruntled business partner. It incentivizes the use of police powers for private vendettas, breeds corruption, and damages Ghana’s reputation as a stable destination for real estate investment. It also violates the state’s duty to remain neutral in private disputes.

Practical Advice for Property Owners and Investors in Ghana

Given this precarious environment, stakeholders must adopt rigorous protective measures.

1. Fortify Your Title Documentation

• Ensure your land is properly registered under the Land Title Registration Act. Possess the original certificate and certified copies.
• Conduct independent due diligence at the Lands Commission and the Lands Registry to verify the chain of title and check for encumbrances, cautions, or pending litigation.
• Keep all original sale and purchase agreements, transfer documents, and planning permissions securely.

2. Navigate Disputes Through Civil Channels First

• If a commercial or boundary dispute arises, initiate formal civil proceedings (declaration, injunction) promptly. This establishes your claim in the proper forum.
• Consider mediation or arbitration as a first step, but document all attempts. A mediator’s report acknowledging the other party’s non-ownership, as in this case, is powerful evidence.
• Avoid confrontations on the property site. All communications regarding the dispute should be in writing through lawyers.

3. If Faced with Criminal Complaints

• Engage a criminal defense lawyer immediately. Do not rely on the assumption that your title will speak for itself.
• Voluntarily present all title documents and proof of peaceful possession to the investigating authorities with a formal letter from your lawyer.
• Object firmly to any remand application at the earliest court appearance. Argue that the dispute is civil, you are not a flight risk, and you pose no danger to the community or the “investigation” (which is arguably a sham to harass).
• Apply for bail vigorously. The standard for bail in misdemeanor cases is generally lower, and a person with fixed abode and clear title should not be remanded.
• Consider counter-complaints for malicious prosecution, defamation, or assault if the facts support them.

4. Protect Possession and Report Encroachments

• If third parties occupy your land, report it to the police as a criminal trespass *by them*, not as a threat by you. Frame it as your property being invaded.
• Simultaneously, file for an interim injunction in the civil court to restore possession. Use the criminal report to support the urgency of the civil application.
• Document all intrusions with dates, times, photos, and witness statements.

FAQ: Addressing the Critical Questions

Q1: Can a registered landowner be guilty of trespassing on their own property?

A: In the strict legal sense, no. Trespass requires entry without lawful authority. A registered owner has the highest form of lawful authority. However, the charge may be an attempt to criminalize a boundary dispute or an alleged encroachment onto another’s title. The prosecution must prove the accused entered land *not* owned by them. If the title is clear and the land in question is within the certificate’s description, the trespass charge is legally defective and an abuse of process.

Q2: Since when can a purely civil/commercial dispute justify a criminal remand?

A: It should not. Remand is justified to prevent flight, interference with witnesses, or the commission of further offenses. In a dispute over commercial negotiations and title, where the accused is a known resident with title deeds and has cooperated with police, these justifications are typically weak. Using remand to pressure a civil settlement is an affront to Section 14