80+ Plots, Protocol Deals: TDC MD Nunekpeku Faces Land Questions

The management of valuable public land under the Tema Development Company (TDC) Ghana Limited is coming under scrutiny amid questions over how some plots have been allocated, who benefited from them and whether the state-owned company received the full commercial value of its land assets.
The questions centre on a series of land transactions involving parts of the Tema Acquisition Area, including serviced residential and commercial plots in Communities 24, 25, 5, 6, 10 and 20.
Information gathered revealed that the management and allocation of valuable lands controlled by the Tema Development Company (TDC) Ghana Limited is questionable with dozens of plots allocated through “protocol” arrangements and that some transactions may have deprived the state-owned company of revenue.
More than 80 plots were allocated to individuals believed to be associates of the Managing Director, Courage Kweku Makafui Nunekpeku, and some members of the company’s Board within less than a year of his assumption of office.
One of the specific allegations concerns 29 serviced residential plots at Community 24, Tema, which the petition says were being sold at about US$33,000 each before being allocated under what it describes as protocol arrangements.
If independently established, such allocations could raise broader questions about the financial implications of protocol allocations for a state-owned land developer, particularly where serviced plots are concerned and where the company has an obligation to generate revenue from its land assets.
There are also questions about several parcels at Community 25, Tema. A parcel belonging to Derrick Hope Gidzi became the subject of a court dispute and that the Managing Director was subsequently seen supervising construction on the disputed property, with many people expressing concerns that Suit No. LC/091/2025 should be allowed to proceed through the courts without interference.
A further allegation concerns a residential plot identified as RP/24/E/43, which the petition claims was offered to lawyer Agbesi Kwadzo Dzakpasu, who was representing Gidzi in the land dispute.
Records at TDC could establish the transaction and further claims that a proposal letter relating to the lawyer’s acquisition of the plot was backdated. These are serious allegations that would require examination of the original TDC correspondence, application records, allocation approvals and dates appearing on the relevant documents.
Another land transaction highlighted in the petition involves property at Communities 5 and 6, Tema, initially associated with Fannash Ltd.
Also, it emerged that the Tema Traditional Council had allocated land in the area to Fannash Ltd and subsequently discussed the allocation with the TDC Managing Director. The petition claims that after meetings and a proposed survey, TDC later indicated that the land had been allocated to another person.
Interestingly, a layout associated with the land subsequently appeared in TDC records with allocations to several individuals and companies.
Those named in the petition include Mallam Issah Mohammed, Yasala Limited, Kennedy Agyapong, Martin Odei Agyeman, Sadel Culture, Naa Dei Fio, Dr Kwabena Donkor and Saeed Sasco Investment.
These raise an important investigative question: how did land initially presented by the petitioners as being associated with a traditional council allocation subsequently appear in TDC allocation records?
Answering that question would require comparison of the original Tema Traditional Council allocation, TDC’s layout plans, cadastral records, allocation approvals, payment records and dates on the relevant instruments.
As if that is not all, buffer land behind the ECG Training School at Community 10, Tema, was allocated or sold at approximately US$60,000 per standard commercial plot.
This land contains an underground Ghana Water Company hydrant serving parts of the surrounding communities. This has raised not only a land-allocation question but also a potential public-infrastructure and public-safety concern.
Other allegations involve a parcel at Community 6, where a private landowner was being displaced and promised alternative land at Community 12, as well as another transaction involving a 1.51-acre parcel at Community 20.
Perhaps the most consequential allegation concerns part of TDC’s head-office land. The petition claims a portion of the property was ceded or sold to HNK Facilities Management after the site had been earmarked for a 10-storey apartment development for the public.
The company is allegedly linked to the son of the President but does not, on its own, establish ownership, beneficial interest or wrongdoing by that individual. Those claims would require verification through the Registrar of Companies, TDC allocation documents, Lands Commission records and the relevant contractual instruments.
Meanwhile, several documents and photographs that that could assist an investigation, including site plans, photographs of developments and records relating to land allocations have been gathered.
The central issue emerging from the allegations is therefore not simply who received individual plots, but whether TDC’s land-disposal processes are being followed consistently, whether public land is being allocated transparently and whether the company is receiving the full commercial value of its assets.
An independent review of TDC’s land allocation records for the period in question could establish how many plots were allocated, the basis for each allocation, the beneficiaries, the prices paid, the approving authorities and whether any allocations departed from established procedures.