Presidency backs TMA’s planning authority in land dispute with TDC

The Presidency has affirmed the Tema Metropolitan Assembly’s authority over local planning and development control, while directing it and TDC Ghana Limited to end a dispute that escalated into demolitions and public confrontation.

In a letter dated August 28 2026, the Office of the President described the TMA as the highest political and administrative authority within the Tema Metropolis.

It said the Assembly was responsible for Tema’s overall development, human settlements, municipal services, revenue mobilisation and local planning.

The Presidency also maintained that the TMA remained the local planning authority responsible for regulating physical development and issuing development and building permits within its jurisdiction.

TDC, meanwhile, was described as a commercially oriented real estate developer rather than a municipal authority.

President John Dramani Mahama directed the two state institutions to establish a clear framework for working together and reach what the Presidency called an immediate and lasting settlement.

The intervention follows a dispute over construction at Community One, Sites 3 and 8. The TMA issued a stop-work order before demolishing parts of structures at the project site, arguing that the development had begun without the required permits.

Reports said the enforcement action followed complaints from residents about the alleged felling of trees, demolition of existing structures, appropriation of playgrounds and green belts, and obstruction of access to homes and businesses.

The claims reported to have been made by residents have not been independently established in the material provided.

The Assembly argued that TDC’s ownership or management of land did not exempt the company from complying with physical planning and development laws.

TDC subsequently petitioned Works, Housing and Water Resources Minister Kenneth Gilbert Adjei and Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs Minister Ahmed Ibrahim to intervene.

The company maintained that it possessed an independent statutory mandate to plan, lay out and develop Tema and should not be treated as an ordinary private developer operating entirely under the Assembly’s authority.

“TDC does not dispute that TMA is a statutory local government authority with responsibilities for physical planning, development control and municipal administration,” the company said in an earlier statement.

“The issue is whether that mandate can be exercised as though TDC’s separate statutory mandate does not exist.”

TDC traced its role to the establishment of the then Tema Development Corporation in 1952 to develop the new Tema township and port.

According to the company, approximately 63 square miles known as the Tema Acquisition Area were compulsorily acquired from the traditional authorities of Tema, Nungua and Kpone and placed under its management through a 125-year lease.

It argued that although some municipal functions were transferred to the then Tema District Assembly in 1989, it retained responsibility for planning, laying out and developing the area, including housing, industrial and commercial projects.

TDC acknowledged the Assembly’s responsibilities for physical planning, development control and municipal administration but said those powers should be exercised alongside its statutory and proprietary interests.

It also pointed to a Joint Technical Evaluation Committee previously established between TDC and assemblies within the Tema Acquisition Area as evidence that a mechanism existed for coordinating their responsibilities.

Following the demolition exercise, TDC Managing Director Courage Makafui Nunekpeku called for dialogue between the two institutions.

“We have petitioned the local government minister, and we have also petitioned our sector minister,” he said. “They will take it up at their level, and I am sure this issue will be resolved amicably.”

The Presidency has now ordered the institutions to cooperate and create an operational framework intended to prevent further clashes.

It warned that any renewed institutional conflict, public confrontation or refusal to comply with the directive would be treated seriously.