The Minority in Parliament has accused the government of repackaging existing land policies and presenting them as new reforms, describing the approach as misleading and politically motivated.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, March 17, the caucus criticised recent announcements by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, insisting that the so-called reforms were largely a rebranding of long-standing laws, policies, and initiatives from previous administrations.
“The Ghanaian public deserves accuracy, not political theatre,” the Minority stated. “What the Ministry has presented as reform is, in large part, a repackaging of existing law and standing policy.”
The critique comes in response to a press conference held by the Ministry, during which it outlined several measures purportedly aimed at improving the management and administration of public lands.
The Minority specifically challenged key elements of the Ministry’s presentation, arguing they lacked novelty or innovation.
On the requirement for ministerial approval in the allocation of public lands, the caucus pointed out that this policy originated from a 2021 directive under the previous administration, rendering it inaccurate to portray it as a fresh initiative.
The use of Form 5 for land applications was similarly dismissed as a reform, with the Minority noting that the process is already enshrined in the State Lands Regulations, 1962 (L.I. 230). They emphasised that any alteration to this would require parliamentary approval.
The ongoing digitalisation efforts at the Lands Commission—frequently highlighted as a major advancement—were also attributed to earlier initiatives, including the introduction of digital composite searches to streamline land title inquiries.
Additionally, the Minority referenced the Public Lands Protection Task Force, stating that it had been established and was already operational, having successfully reclaimed encroached state lands before the current government took office.
“These are not new measures,” the statement read. “They are continuations of policies and systems already in place.”
While acknowledging that governance involves continuity and that the continuation of existing programmes is not inherently problematic, the caucus took strong exception to what it termed the misrepresentation of these efforts as groundbreaking reforms.
“Our quarrel is not with continuation,” the Minority clarified. “Our quarrel is with misrepresentation.”