By Issah Olegor
The Cape Coast Metropolitan Assembly (CCMA) has come under intense public criticism following allegations that officials verbally ordered a fuel station Star Oil to suspend business operations during the nationwide clean-up exercise, despite an official notice that it only invited the company to appear before the Assembly’s Environmental Health Unit over an alleged sanitation breach.
The controversy has reignited debate over the powers of Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) to enforce participation in national sanitation exercises, with critics questioning whether businesses can legally be compelled to suspend operations for failing to join voluntary clean-up activities.
The incident comes against the backdrop of President John Dramani Mahama’s declaration of Friday, July 10, and Saturday, July 11, 2026, as National General Cleaning Days in seven flood-affected regions following recent devastating floods across parts of the country.
Under the theme “Our Actions, Our Future: Cleaning Ghana after the Floods,” the Presidency encouraged citizens, businesses, public institutions and government officials to participate in the nationwide sanitation exercise aimed at desilting drains, clearing refuse, removing weeds and reducing the risk of future flooding.
As part of the directive, Ministers, Members of Parliament, Chief Executives, Metropolitan, Municipal and District Chief Executives, heads of public institutions and security agencies were instructed to lead the exercise within their respective jurisdictions.
However, participation by the general public was largely presented as a civic responsibility, with the Presidency encouraging rather than mandating citizens to take part.
The latest controversy erupted after a public complaint alleged that officials of the Cape Coast Metropolitan Assembly verbally instructed operators of a fuel station to stop selling fuel because some workers had allegedly failed to participate in the clean-up exercise.
According to the complaint, the Assembly’s officers reportedly insisted that the station suspend operations, even though the written notice served on the company did not contain any directive ordering the closure of the business.
Instead, the official document issued by the Assembly’s Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit was an Abatement Notice under Section 56 (a), (b) and (c) of the Public Health Act, 2012 (Act 851).
The notice invited the recipient to appear before the Environmental Health Office to explain why legal action should not be taken over an alleged failure to fulfil public health responsibilities.
Critics argue that nowhere in the written notice is there an instruction requiring the fuel station to cease operations.
The development has generated widespread reactions, with some questioning the legal basis for the alleged verbal directive.
Those criticising the Assembly contend that if officials believed any business had violated sanitation regulations, the appropriate course of action would have been to initiate legal proceedings or apply penalties prescribed under the Assembly’s by-laws rather than allegedly ordering the suspension of commercial activities.
The complainants also rejected suggestions that the company’s staff had ignored the clean-up exercise, insisting that employees who were off duty had participated and that evidence existed to support that claim.
They further argued that businesses have operational responsibilities that cannot simply be abandoned during working hours, noting that essential services must continue even during national exercises.
Some commentators have also questioned whether private institutions such as banks, fuel stations and other businesses could reasonably be expected to halt operations entirely to participate in the exercise, especially when they continue to meet their statutory obligations through the payment of taxes and levies that support public services, including sanitation.
At the centre of the controversy are allegations directed at a senior official of the Assembly, with critics accusing her of adopting an unnecessarily aggressive approach in dealing with the matter.
