The politics of customary land rights transformation in peri-urban Ghana: Powers of exclusion in the era of land commodification

Building on “Traditional” Land Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Rural Ghana: Adaptive or Anachronistic?

“…Yet the burgeoning scholarship has largely focused on large-scale land grabbing and inter-community boundary conflicts, with relatively little empirical attention to intra-community dynamics on traditional land dispute resolution processes [31][32][33]. The findings of this study demonstrate that despite concerns about the exclusionary practices in the customary land delivery process [9,49,51], traditional institutions remain the preferred fora for land dispute resolution in the surveyed communities. The overwhelming preference of traditional mechanisms for land dispute resolution rather than the state courts (98% and 90% of respondents in Kakum and Ankasa respectively) is a testament of the strong social legitimacy enjoyed by local customary tenure arrangements regarding land dispute resolution.…”

“…The promotion of the 'good land governance' agenda has reinvigorated into the spotlight a raging debate on the land question regarding contextually relevant pathways to engender land tenure security and equitable customary land management in the SSA context [3][4][5][6]. Central to this emerging critical discourse is the enduring challenge of widespread customary land disputes exacerbated by the increasing commodification and individualisation of communal lands in most rural parts of SSA [7][8][9]. Although the wideranging socio-economic and political consequences of customary land disputes in affected areas and countries are well-documented in the literature [7,10], it is also acknowledged that the effects of customary land disputes vary across different spatial continuumsfrom rural to peri-urban to urban areas [7].…”

“…In other words, their arguments echo important contextual or 'place-based' differences rather than universalist descriptions that shapes and determines tenurial outcomes. Thus, given the 'right' institutional tinkering or tenurial re-engineering of customary tenure institutions (with others have characterized as adaptation, [28]) they are better positioned to deliver tenure security and respond to other emergent tenurial challenges [5,9,22]. In any event, an important 'take-home' message from the two opposing conceptual positions rests on how customary tenure institutions fare[ing] on the ground in terms of safeguarding tenure security, and more particularly effectively addressing land disputes across the sub-region [22,29].…”

“…Yet, to date, in spite of the renewed policy interest in customary tenure institutions, little is known at least empirically about the factors that have allowed them to withstand colonial and post-colonial reforms and retain their role in local-level land governance. With the notable exception of few recent studies [8,9,30,31], there is a relative dearth of empirical focus on the potential role of the customary in the contemporary context, particularly with respect to land disputes and traditional dispute resolution pathways [32][33][34]. More nuanced and detailed contextual understanding of the operations of customary tenure institutions and the limits of their adaptability remain critical to better inform and guide on-going and future interventions towards the integration of customary tenure systems into the formal statutory framework for improved tenure security and effective land dispute resolution [8,9].…”

“…With the notable exception of few recent studies [8,9,30,31], there is a relative dearth of empirical focus on the potential role of the customary in the contemporary context, particularly with respect to land disputes and traditional dispute resolution pathways [32][33][34]. More nuanced and detailed contextual understanding of the operations of customary tenure institutions and the limits of their adaptability remain critical to better inform and guide on-going and future interventions towards the integration of customary tenure systems into the formal statutory framework for improved tenure security and effective land dispute resolution [8,9]. As argued by Anyidoho et al [35:3] the process of tenurial adaptation cannot happen in isolation from the historical, political and legal context, which change cannot be imposed but must be built upon the institutional structures and practices that have evolved overtime.…”