BY Grace Zigah
The long-running land dispute involving investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas and a businessman Adolph Tetteh has taken a decisive turn after the Supreme Court of Ghana confirmed that Anas lawfully acquired his Tseaddo parcel of land through a customary grant in 2005.
The ruling not only settles a nearly two-decade controversy but also dismantles a narrative that has been aggressively pushed in the media and political circles by the rival claimant Adolph Tetteh and amplified for years by outspoken politician Kennedy Agyapong.
For years, discussions surrounding the Tseaddo land dispute were mired in conflicting claims, allegations of fraud, and a high-octane smear campaign against Anas.
The controversy intensified following a Court of Appeal decision which cast doubt on Anas’s documentation—a ruling that became a central weapon used against him.
However, the Supreme Court has now dismissed that interpretation as unreasonable and unsupported, restoring the factual basis of Anas’s ownership claim.
The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights a chronological gap that fundamentally weakens Adolph Tetteh’s claims. Records before the Court show that:
Anas received his customary grant in 2005 and took possession immediately.
Hillsview, the company that later transferred land to Adolph, only acquired its interest in 2007.
Adolph’s alleged title originated in 2013, almost eight years after Anas’ grant.
This timeline made it impossible for Adolph’s claim to legally supersede Anas’s earlier and superior interest. Legal experts note that the dates alone render Adolph’s case untenable and expose th e motivations behind his prolonged campaign to discredit Anas.
For close to a decade, Member of Parliament Kennedy Agyapong used his media platforms to attack Anas, frequently citing the Appeal Court judgment to brand the journalist as dishonest and criminal.
But the Supreme Court’s ruling has pulled the rug from under those allegations.
The Court affirmed that the evidence supporting Anas’s 2005 transaction was credible, lawful, and validated by recognised landowning families.
In contrast, the rival claim lacked historical depth, legal foundation, and credible documentation.
The investigative background of the dispute reveals that while Anas pursued formal channels—relying on documentation, grants from legitimate families, and court processes—Adolph Tetteh allegedly employed a different strategy.
This created a years-long atmosphere of hostility around the land, with attempts to forcibly challenge Anas’s occupation despite his earlier lawful entry.
Supreme Court Restores the Facts And the Law
The Supreme Court’s detailed findings reaffirm that: Anas’s 2005 grant was valid and properly executed, his grantors were legitimate customary landowners recognised by law, and no part of Adolph’s purported chain of title predates Anas’s claim.
The Appeal Court’s earlier rejection of Anas’s evidence was factually unsound.
This judgment brings a conclusive end to the dispute, re-establishing the factual and legal reality that Anas had always maintained.
