Contempt Case Against AMA Boss Dismissed

By Stephen K. Effah
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

AN Accra Fast Track Court yesterday dismissed a contempt case brought against the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and its Chief Executive, Stanley Adjiri Blankson, for their failure to eject hawkers at the Knustford Avenue in Accra Central.

The court, presided over by Justice Victor Ofoe, awarded cost of GH¢700 fine against Mr Labib C. Seraphim, the complainant.

Mr Seraphim, owner of Seraphim Department Stores in Accra, had filed a motion of notice to impose a heavy fine on the assembly, and commit its boss to prison for the assembly’s refusal to evict hawkers from the Knustford Avenue.

He also asked the court to compel the assembly and its Chief Executive to discharge their obligation by evicting hawkers from the street to allow vehicular access to stores in the area.

Dismissing the case, the judge held that Mr Seraphim was not able to prove to the court that the AMA and its boss "wilfully disobeyed" the court order.

It said that the assembly and its Chief Executive in April 2006, did eject the hawkers from the Knustford Avenue, adding that the fact that the hawkers returned does not mean the AMA did not carry out the court orders.

"The order is not a continuing one which will call for a continuing policing of the place," the court said.

Earlier, counsel for Mr Seraphim, Godfred Yeboah Dame, contended that the AMA and Mr Adjiri Blankson have deliberately refused to eject the hawkers from the Knustford Avenue.

But counsel for AMA, Selina Fenteng, disagreed saying that the AMA did comply with the court directives by ejecting the hawkers from the street, which resulted in free pedestrian and vehicular movement.

She tendered in evidence some newspaper publications indicating that the assembly carried out the court orders to eject the hawkers, adding that a pedestrian shopping mall was constructed by the assembly for the ejected hawkers at the Kwame Nkrumah Circle after the exercise.

On February 28, 2005, Mr Seraphim commenced action against the AMA, at the Fast Track High Court which on April 10, 2006, granted him all the reliefs he sought.

These included an order to compel the assembly to provide vehicular access to Knustford Avenue and another order to restrain the defendants from converting Knustford Avenue into a market.

The court, in granting the reliefs, declared that the action of the assembly in converting the Knustford Avenue into a market for hawkers was unlawful and asked it to discharge its obligation of evicting the hawkers.

It further asked the assembly to provide vehicular access to Knustford Avenue and restrain it from ever converting the place into a market for hawkers.

But Mr Seraphim said in his motion that the AMA had for the past two years refused to carry out the court orders, as the hawkers continued to exercise "absolute dominion" at the place, which he indicated, is gravely hampering the lawful business activities in the area.