By Alex Ababio Investigative Special Report | October 30, 2026
The demolition of structures at La Pleasure Beach in Accra has developed into a major dispute over livelihoods, beachfront management, public accountability and the rights of local communities, following protests by residents demanding government intervention.
On Thursday, October 29, 2026, residents of La took to the streets under the slogan “Aaagbe Wɔ Demo”, organised by the Ga-Dangme Progressive Front. They called on President John Dramani Mahama to intervene and allow traders and other workers displaced by the demolition to return to the beachfront.
The demonstration has brought renewed attention to the economic consequences of the October 2 operation, which affected restaurants, bars and other businesses operating along the La beachfront.
Addressing the demonstrators, New Patriotic Party (NPP) National Organiser Titus Glover appealed to President Mahama to protect the interests of the affected Ga-Dangme people and help restore their livelihoods.
“We, the youth of the Ga-Dangme people, are saying that enough is enough. So we want to register our plea with the President to intervene and get the traders back to the place,” he said.
But the growing public anger is about more than the destruction of business structures. It raises difficult questions about who has the legal authority to manage La Pleasure Beach, whether affected operators were adequately consulted, and how the government intends to address the economic losses.
The dispute has also entered the courts, with the beach’s management committee challenging the demolition and the authority of the parties involved.
The demolition and SSNIT’s justification
The demolition was carried out on Friday, October 2, 2026, by security personnel from the Ghana Armed Forces and the Ghana Police Service.
The operation affected structures at La Pleasure Beach and the nearby Polo Beach Club, close to the Labadi Beach Hotel.
The Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT), which owns the investment interests in Labadi Beach Hotel and La Palm Royal Beach Hotel, subsequently explained why it requested National Security’s intervention.
In a statement issued on October 2, SSNIT said it wanted to address what it described as persistent unlawful occupation, encroachment and unauthorised activities along the beachfront adjoining and directly in front of the two hotels.
According to the Trust, the activities posed security risks to hotel guests, employees, service providers and visitors.
It also identified concerns about fire outbreaks, sanitation, public health, environmental degradation and disruption to hotel operations.
SSNIT argued that the beachfront activities affected the hotels’ reputation, revenue and financial performance.
The Trust further explained that the hotels were part of its investment portfolio and that it had a responsibility to protect the assets for Ghanaian workers and pensioners.
“In view of the foregoing, SSNIT requested support from National Security to protect the assets belonging to Ghanaian workers,” its statement said.
However, SSNIT also made an important commitment concerning public access.
“The beaches will be cleaned and restored to a safe and desirable state and will remain open to the public,” the Board of Trustees stated.
This assurance has become particularly important as residents and affected businesses question what will happen to the beachfront and whether the displaced operators will be permitted to return.
4,000 jobs at risk as tourism businesses count their losses
The economic impact of the demolition could extend far beyond the owners of the destroyed structures.
According to the Ghana Tourism Federation (GHATOF), 85 businesses were affected, putting approximately 4,000 jobs at risk, with many of the positions held by women.
The figures were reported following a meeting between the federation and affected traders on October 15.
GHATOF President Seth Ocran said the federation would pursue compensation for the affected businesses and advocate for their inclusion in any future redevelopment of the beachfront.
The federation also questioned why businesses with operating permits were demolished without what it considered adequate notice.
Some of the affected businesses had operated at the beach for decades, contributing to the local economy through taxes, tourism levies and other statutory payments.
Media report also documented the uncertainty facing business owners, operators and workers.
It reported that approximately 30 structures, including multi-storey buildings, were pulled down during the October 2 operation.
Abdul Raman Ashietey, Communications Director of La Pleasure Beach Resort, told the journalists that the operation was carried out by soldiers under the authority of Richard Jakpa, Director of Special Operations at National Security.
The affected business owners expressed concern about their investments and the absence of clear arrangements for their future.
The 4,000 figure represents jobs reportedly at risk, rather than independently verified confirmed job losses. Nevertheless, it highlights the potential economic consequences for families dependent on the beachfront.
The Coalition of La Associations (COLA) has also demanded compensation for affected businesses at both La Pleasure Beach and Laboma Beach Resort.
In a statement issued on October 29, the coalition called for an independent review of the demolitions, meaningful consultations and a transparent compensation process.
It also urged the authorities to consider destroyed structures, equipment, furniture, business stock and other investments when assessing losses.
COLA argued that environmental protection and economic survival should not be treated as opposing objectives.
“Protecting the environment and protecting people’s livelihoods should not be treated as competing interests. Government must be able to do both,” the coalition stated.
Traditional authorities challenge the handling of the beachfront
The demolition has also exposed disagreements over the management and ownership interests surrounding the La coastline.
The La Traditional Council expressed dissatisfaction with the exercise, particularly what it described as the failure to consult traditional authorities before the demolition.
On October 7, following a meeting involving SSNIT, Labadi Beach Hotel management, the Minister for Local Government and the Greater Accra Regional Minister, the council announced that plans to redevelop the demolished La Pleasure Beach Resort had been suspended pending further consultations.
Speaking at a press conference, La Shikitele, Nii Adjei Koofeh IV, said the traditional authorities were unhappy with the manner in which the operation was conducted.
He said the council considered itself a primary stakeholder because of its position concerning the land and should have been informed before the demolition.
The Ga-Dangme Council has also questioned the ownership claims surrounding the beachfront.
Its President, Nii Ayikoi Otoo, told journalists on October that the council had not seen documentary evidence establishing Labadi Beach Hotel’s ownership of the disputed sections of the beachfront.
He referred to correspondence in which the hotel had reportedly sought permission from the La Traditional Council to use land around the beach.
He also questioned why competing claims over the land had not been resolved through legal channels before the demolition.
These concerns have not established that the hotels lack any lawful interest in the land. Equally, SSNIT’s statement about protecting its hotel investments does not, by itself, establish ownership of every disputed section of the beachfront.
The distinction between ownership of hotel properties, rights to use adjoining land and authority to manage public beachfront activities is central to resolving the dispute.
Dispute moves to the High Court
The disagreement has now developed into a legal battle.
On October 23, 2026, Stanley Anyetei Nunoo, who identifies himself as Chairman of the La Pleasure Beach Management Committee, filed a suit at the High Court in Accra against Hotel Investments (Ghana) Limited, La Palm Beach Hotel Limited and SSNIT.
According to a published statement, the committee is seeking a declaration confirming its authority to manage, control and regulate activities at the beach, including issuing operating licences and generating revenue.
The plaintiff argues that the committee was established following a Court of Appeal order dated July 21, 2022, which dissolved an interim management committee previously established by the High Court in April 2013.
The committee alleges that security personnel entered the beachfront on October 2 and demolished its management office and other licensed structures.
It further claims that equipment, furniture, files and official records were destroyed or removed, while staff and licensed operators were forced to leave.
The plaintiff alleges that the operation took place without a court order, warrant, prior notice or an opportunity for the committee to be heard.
It is asking the court to declare the demolition unlawful, restore its management authority, order an independent assessment of the alleged damage and award compensation for property destruction and business losses.
These are allegations presented by the plaintiff, not established findings of the court. The defendants’ responses were not included in the court documents reviewed by Graphic Online.
The case could therefore become important in determining the competing claims over the management of the beachfront and the legality of the demolition.
Constitutional questions and the question of compensation
The circumstances surrounding the demolition also raise questions about property rights, administrative accountability and the protection of people affected by government action.
Article 20 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution provides safeguards where the State compulsorily acquires property. These include prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation and access to the High Court to determine property interests and compensation claims.
It also provides for suitable alternative land and consideration of the economic well-being of displaced inhabitants in cases of compulsory acquisition involving displacement.
However, whether Article 20 applies directly to the circumstances of the La Pleasure Beach demolition depends on the legal nature of the interests involved and whether there was a compulsory acquisition by the State. It should not automatically be treated as proof that every affected trader is entitled to compensation under that provision.
The legal proceedings and the documentation held by the affected operators, management committee, traditional authorities and public institutions will be important in establishing their respective rights.
The authorities also need to explain whether operating permits, licences and other approvals issued to businesses were considered before the demolition.
What happens to the displaced traders?
The central question remains whether the affected businesses will be allowed to return, relocated or compensated for their losses.
SSNIT has promised that the beaches will remain open to the public, while the La Traditional Council has secured a suspension of the proposed redevelopment pending further consultations.
GHATOF is demanding that displaced operators receive the first right of refusal in any future redevelopment.
Meanwhile, COLA wants an independent assessment of the losses suffered by businesses at both La Pleasure Beach and Laboma Beach Resort.
The government must now address these competing concerns through a transparent process.
That should include publishing the boundaries of the affected properties, clarifying the respective land and management rights, identifying businesses with valid operating permits and establishing a credible mechanism for assessing losses.
The authorities should also clarify the arrangements for public access to the beachfront and whether small businesses can participate in any redevelopment programme.
The October 29 demonstration has made one issue particularly clear: the demolition has become a question of economic survival for many families in La.
Titus Glover’s appeal to President Mahama reflects the growing demand for political intervention. But political assurances alone will not resolve the dispute.
The government must establish the facts, address the competing legal claims and ensure that affected people are not abandoned without a clear explanation of their rights and available remedies.
For now, La Pleasure Beach remains at the centre of a difficult debate about investment protection, community interests, tourism development and accountability.
The real test will be whether the authorities can protect public and private investments without leaving hundreds of business owners and thousands of workers to bear the economic cost of the exercise.