You Demolish Schools to Build Markets? – Kojo Preko Dankwa Questions Government

Host of Kessben Maakye on Kessben TV and Kessben 92.9FM, Kojo Preko Dankwa, has questioned the demolition of existing community structures to make way for what the government now describes as District Economy Markets.

Speaking on the programme, Kojo Preko Dankwa said residents affected by the demolition of houses, schools, banks, markets and other properties deserve clear explanations about the projects and what will replace the structures being removed.

His comments followed growing discussions over projects initially presented to many Ghanaians as part of the government’s 24-hour economy initiative but which are now being described as District Economy Markets.

Kojo Preko Dankwa said the change in terminology has exposed what he considers a serious communication gap within government.

He argued that the government had sufficient opportunity to explain the projects properly because the term “24-hour market” had been used publicly for a considerable period.

According to him, government officials, including MPs and District Chief Executives, should have been able to explain the exact nature, purpose and scope of the projects to residents.

He questioned why the government did not correct the public understanding earlier if the projects were always intended to be known as District Economy Markets.

“The communication gap” has become particularly concerning, he said, because some residents are now losing homes and existing facilities without seeing clear evidence of replacement infrastructure.

Kojo Preko Dankwa argued that development projects must take into consideration the needs of the communities where they are being implemented.

He said government cannot simply demolish an existing facility and expect residents to accept a new project without adequately explaining the reason for the demolition, the benefits of the replacement project and how the community’s immediate needs will be addressed.

He particularly raised concerns about schools.

According to him, if a school building is found to be defective or structurally unsafe and is therefore demolished, the appropriate response should be to provide a properly constructed replacement school.

He questioned the logic of removing a school and replacing it with a market when the affected community still requires an educational facility.

“If there is a defect in school buildings and it is not proper, if the building is demolished, you have to replace it,” he stressed.

He said such situations demonstrate why development communication must form part of government planning.

For him, communication should not begin only after a project has generated controversy.

Rather, government should engage residents before construction begins, explain the project’s objectives and listen to concerns about land use and existing community facilities.

Kojo Preko Dankwa also questioned whether local authorities had properly assessed the effectiveness of the proposed markets for the communities in which they are being constructed.

Using the Two Face Market as an example, he recalled earlier explanations that the first phase would involve expanding the market, with a second phase expected to introduce additional facilities and logistics, including a fire service station and clinic.

He questioned whether the relevant district and metropolitan assemblies had adequately explained the full plan to residents.

He also raised concerns about the availability of land, asking how government intends to construct District Economy Markets when some communities have limited land for development.

According to him, these questions should have been addressed through proper consultation with residents before demolition and construction began.

Kojo Preko Dankwa further argued that government should not rely solely on its manifesto or political authority to implement projects without ensuring that the affected population understands and supports the development.

He said ordinary citizens who voted for the government deserve to understand what is being constructed in their communities and why existing properties are being removed.

Kojo Preko Dankwa questioned why the Local Government Ministry and the government’s communication machinery did not address those comments at the time.

He said the silence allowed the public to continue associating the projects with the 24-hour economy until the government later began describing them as District Economy Markets.

He therefore maintained that the issue is not simply about changing the name of a project but about whether the government has effectively communicated its development plans to citizens.

He said the failure to communicate clearly has contributed to confusion and frustration, particularly among people whose properties and community facilities are being affected.

Kojo Preko Dankwa also questioned how the projects are being financed and linked the discussion to allocations for district assemblies for the 2025/2026 period.

He argued that DCEs and other local officials must be able to clearly explain the projects to residents if government expects communities to accept them.

“If one DCE doesn’t explain properly what the market is supposed to be, then we have failed,” he said.

Kojo Preko Dankwa concluded that the situation demonstrates what he considers a broader failure in development communication, insisting that government must engage communities properly and ensure that demolished facilities are appropriately replaced rather than simply introducing new projects in their place.