Commit AMA boss to prison for refusing to eject hawkers - businessman

Accra, April 15, GNA - A businessman has filed a motion on notice to impose a heavy fine on the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and commit its Chief Executive Officer, Stanley Nii Adjiri Blankson to prison for refusing to evict hawkers from the Knustford Avenue in the Central Business District.

Mr Labib C. Seraphim, owner of Seraphim Department Stores, is seeking orders that the AMA and its CEO discharge their obligations by evicting hawkers from Knustford Avenue and provide vehicular access to the stores. Before Mr. Godfred Yeboah Dame, counsel for the plaintiff, could move the motion, the Court presided over Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, a Court Appeal judge, noted that Mr. Blankson had not been served. "There is no proof of service, the proper thing should be done," the court said. The case was therefore adjourned to April 22.

On February 28, 2005, plaintiff commenced action against the AMA and on April 10, 2006, the Fast Track High Court granted the plaintiff all the relief he had sought. The relief included an order compelling AMA to provide vehicular access to the Knustford Avenue and another order restraining the defendants from converting Knustford Avenue into a market. The court, in granting the relief in its judgment declared that the action of the AMA in converting the Knustford Avenue into a market for hawkers was unlawful and asked the AMA to discharge its obligation of evicting the hawkers. It further asked the AMA to provide vehicular access to Knustford Avenue and restrained the Assembly from ever converting the place into a market for hawkers.

The plaintiff said the AMA had for the past two years refused to carry out the orders and that the hawkers continued to exercise "absolute dominion" at the place. "Respondents' willful violation of the orders of this court contained in its judgment is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knustford Avenue. "The situation is gravely hampering the lawful business activities of myself and other property owners."

The plaintiff contended that in spite of the orders of the court, AMA had erected pillars, which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court's order. "A huge and deep ditch has also been dug in front of my property and has been uncovered for well over one year now. I have on numerous occasions through my solicitors brought the situation to the attention of the respondents but they have refused to (cover) it," plaintiff said. Plaintiff said the refusal of the respondents to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice as well as undermining the authority of the court.