General News
Socrate Safo questions La Pleasure Beach demolition, warns of threat to judicial due process
Creative-industry practitioner and concerned citizen Socrate Safo has criticised the demolition of structures at La Pleasure Beach, questioning the use of military force in a dispute involving indigenous land rights, commercial interests and an ongoing legal process.
In a lengthy Facebook post, Safo described the development as a troubling example of what he called “state muscle” being used at a time when questions surrounding ownership, leases and the rights of affected parties remain before the courts.
The demolition took place on Friday, October 2, 2026, with excavators operated by the military’s 48 Engineer Regiment reportedly used to pull down structures at the beach.
According to Safo, the development raises a broader question about the relationship between state power, indigenous land rights and the rule of law in Ghana.
He asked whether disputes involving state-backed commercial interests and indigenous communities should be resolved through military intervention and demolition or through the courts and established legal processes.
Safo argued that the La Pleasure Beach situation should not be treated simply as a routine land-clearing exercise, insisting that it has implications for property rights, traditional land ownership and judicial authority.
History of La Pleasure Beach dispute
Safo traced the relationship between the state and the La Traditional Council over the beach to years of tourism development and negotiations.
He said a 2002 Memorandum of Understanding reportedly established a working relationship between the Ghana Tourist Development Company Limited (GTDC) and the La Traditional Council, which represents traditional interests in the land.
According to him, disagreements later emerged over the management of the facility and revenue generated from the beach, eventually leading to litigation.
Safo said that in 2014, the High Court established a revenue-sharing arrangement involving proceeds from the beach.
Under the reported arrangement, 20 per cent of gate proceeds was allocated to the traditional landowners, 30 per cent went into a Community Youth Development Fund, while 50 per cent was allocated for operations.
While acknowledging that the arrangement may have faced disagreements and administrative challenges, Safo said such disputes were precisely why Ghana has courts.
He argued that corporate disagreements, management disputes, contractual claims and land ownership questions should be resolved through evidence and judicial decisions rather than what he described as the sudden arrival of military excavators.
Labadi Beach Hotel boundary dispute
Safo also focused on a longstanding boundary dispute involving La Pleasure Beach and the adjacent Labadi Beach Hotel, whose interests are linked to Hotel Investments (Ghana) Limited and the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT).
He said the hotel’s position, as reported, is that some commercial entertainment facilities, particularly the Polo Beach Club, encroached on land belonging to the hotel.
Concerns have also reportedly been raised about noise, security and activities taking place close to the hotel.
Safo acknowledged that such concerns deserved to be addressed but said the historical claims of the La Traditional Council and businesses that had operated on the beachfront for decades should also be considered.
He pointed to traditional accounts suggesting that structures and activities associated with La Pleasure Beach had existed from around 1960, before the establishment of the Labadi Beach Hotel.
He also referred to claims that the chiefs of La had historically allowed the hotel’s boundary to extend beyond the Maale Stream as an act of goodwill.
Safo argued that if that history is accurate, such traditional accommodation should not automatically be interpreted decades later as permanent ownership without a proper legal determination.
He described the issue as one requiring careful judicial consideration.
Safo said the controversy escalated after Spartan-Ives Limited, operators of the Polo Beach Club, commenced legal proceedings on September 16, 2026, against Hotel Investments (Ghana) Limited and Richard Jakpa, Director of Special Operations at the National Security Council Secretariat.
According to Safo, Spartan-Ives relied on a 20-year lease obtained from the La Stool in 2022 for GH¢1.5 million.
He said the company also claimed to have invested more than GH¢41.3 million in the property.
Safo stressed that the validity of those claims is ultimately a matter for the courts.
However, he questioned why demolition was allowed to proceed if litigation was active and an application for an interlocutory injunction was pending.
He argued that the issue goes beyond the Polo Beach Club, saying it touches on the confidence that individuals, businesses and traditional authorities have in the judicial system.
“If a party can lose its property or investment before a judge has ruled on an injunction because another arm of the state has decided to act physically,” Safo argued, “then what confidence should citizens have in judicial protection?”
Safo warned that the situation could create a dangerous precedent if executive or state power is allowed to effectively determine a disputed matter before the courts have ruled.
He acknowledged that there could be legitimate national security concerns, unlawful encroachment or other reasons for state intervention.
However, he maintained that such circumstances should not automatically eliminate due process.
He argued that if there was an unlawful encroachment, the question should be who legally owns the land, while any alleged breach of a lease should be assessed based on the terms of that lease.
For Safo, the answer to such questions should come through the appropriate legal process rather than demolition.
Beyond the legal dispute, Safo raised concerns about the impact of the demolition on people whose livelihoods depend on activities at La Pleasure Beach.
He said reports indicate that nearly 5,000 beach vendors, workers and small-business operators have been affected.
He listed food vendors, drink sellers, fishermen, entertainers, cleaners, security personnel, artisans, transport operators and other small businesses among those whose incomes are connected to the beach.
According to him, the beach is not simply a recreational destination for these people but an important source of livelihood.
Safo therefore questioned whether there was a transition programme for people whose businesses had been disrupted.
He said any government that demolishes or disrupts an economic ecosystem has a responsibility to explain how the resulting human and economic consequences will be addressed.
Concerns ahead of December tourism season
Safo also raised concerns about the timing of the demolition, coming just weeks before Ghana’s major December tourism season.
He noted that December has become an important period for Ghana’s tourism and hospitality industry, attracting visitors from the diaspora and other parts of the world.
According to him, beach entertainment, restaurants, nightlife, events and cultural experiences form part of the tourism ecosystem.
He therefore questioned whether destroying major commercial activity at an established coastal entertainment destination shortly before the peak season could have wider economic consequences for businesses, workers and the tourism sector.
Safo further questioned whether there was a coordinated plan involving the Ministry of Tourism before the action was carried out.
He said if allegations that the ministry was not adequately involved are accurate, it would raise questions about how major decisions affecting tourism infrastructure are being coordinated.
Safo also referred to the reported confrontation between La Dade-Kotopon MP Rita Naa Odoley Sowah and military personnel at the site.
He said the incident had further exposed the political sensitivity surrounding the demolition.
He also questioned the role of the National Security Secretariat, arguing that although national security remains an important component of the state, its powers should not become a substitute for the courts, regulatory agencies, ministries or traditional dispute-resolution mechanisms.
Safo said institutions with significant state power must be subject to transparency and accountability.
‘La is bigger than one beach’
In his concluding argument, Safo said the La Pleasure Beach controversy is bigger than the Polo Beach Club, Labadi Beach Hotel, SSNIT, the La Traditional Council or individual commercial interests.
He said the matter concerns whether indigenous communities can have confidence that their traditional land rights will be respected, whether investors can trust that contractual and property rights will be protected, and whether court processes will be respected.
He also questioned whether the government should deploy coercive state power against citizens while a legal dispute remains before the judiciary.
Safo acknowledged the legitimate role of government in protecting public land, enforcing planning regulations, preventing unlawful development and safeguarding national security.
However, he maintained that such enforcement must operate within the law.
He warned that the government must be particularly careful when exercising coercive powers in the middle of private or commercial disputes.
Safo said Ghana had spent decades building institutions intended to replace the rule of force with the rule of law, including the courts, regulatory bodies, ministries and institutions recognising traditional authorities and customary land rights.
He argued that the La Pleasure Beach situation should therefore become a national conversation about the limits of state power.
He warned that if state power is allowed to replace judicial due process, the consequences could extend far beyond La.
“I am just a concerned citizen and creative-industry practitioner,” Safo stated.
He added a disclaimer that the references used in his write-up were based on information available in the public domain and that he was willing to be corrected on any inaccuracies.