Video cast doubt over Maritime deputy boss’ claims over Spintex land dispute

Barely a week after the Deputy Ghana Maritime Authority (GMA) boss, Mr Mubarick Masawudu denied any involvement in a land dispute at Spintex Road, Accra, currently before the High Court, insisting that he has not engaged in or participated in any land dispute at the location, a video currently in circulation raises questions about his initial claim.
The video in circulation and seen by this portal apparently captures a man in white shirt with similar looks of Mr Masawudu surrounded by some persons who appear to be in disagreement at a location similar to where the land is in contention (disputed property).
The circumstances surrounding the video, including when it was recorded, why Mr Masawudu was at the location and the activities taking place at the time, could not independently be established.
Mr Masawudu has denied being involved in the dispute or having any engagement concerning the disputed land.
The video has nevertheless raised questions about the circumstances of his alleged presence at the property ostensibly surrounded by heavily built men alleged to be landguards, particularly because the dispute is already before the High Court and involves competing claims over the land.
The allegations against Mr Masawudu had previously suggested that he was backing one of the factions in the dispute and had allegedly used persons described as land guards to facilitate the takeover or continued occupation of the property.
Those allegations remain unproven, and Mr Masawudu has denied any involvement.
The dispute concerns a parcel of land at Spintex, Accra, which is the subject of Suit No. LD/0516/2026, involving Mr Artin Kassardjian and Mrs Haykouhi Kassardjian as applicants and Abdul Razak, Amos Sowah Pablo Annan and The Developer as respondents.
A certified court order dated August 27, 2026, issued by the High Court, Land Division Eleven, Accra, authorised substituted service of the injunction application and originating motion by posting copies of the processes at the Land Division of the Law Court Complex and on the disputed land at Spintex, Accra.
The order further directed that the notice remain posted for 21 days.
The existence of the court proceedings has heightened interest in activities taking place on the disputed property and the identity of persons exercising physical control over it.
Significantly, an official Certificate of Result of Search issued by the Lands Commission on July 22, 2026, provides a documentary history of dealings concerning the land.
The search, conducted for BAFLA Ltd, records a lease dated December 7, 2017, from Nuumo Adjei Kwanko II to Samuel Kofi Diame, followed by a judgment dated July 9, 2018, in favour of Samuel Kofi Diame under Suit No. LD/0424/2017.
The same Lands Commission search also records that the land is affected by a plotted activity for Joemat Real Estate Development Limited, with Samuel Kofi Diame identified as grantor.
A subsequent registry entry states that the property is affected by Land Certificate No. GA56155 issued to Joemat Real Estate Development Limited, with Samuel Kofi Diame as grantor.
The documentary record is therefore likely to be relevant in determining the competing interests in the property.
The Land Certificate exhibited in the documents is issued under the authority of the Land Title Registry, Accra.
It states that Joemat Real Estate Development Limited is registered as tenant or lessee for the unexpired residue of a 99-year lease commencing December 7, 2007, covering approximately 24.42 hectares, equivalent to 60.33 acres, at Spintex in the Greater Accra Region.
The property is identified as Parcel No. 7359, Block 2, Section 097, and is delineated on Registry Map No. 002/097/1992.
The accompanying registry plan identifies the locality as Spintex and gives the parcel as 7359, Block 2, Section 097.
The documents consequently raise questions about how the various interests in the property arose, how the land was subsequently dealt with and whether the portion currently being developed falls within the land covered by the relevant instruments.
The latest development has introduced another dimension to the controversy following the circulation of a video in which Mr Masawudu is reportedly seen at the disputed site.
The newspaper has seen the footage, but has not independently established its date, location or the circumstances in which it was recorded.
The mere presence of an individual at a disputed property does not, by itself, establish ownership, participation in litigation, or unlawful interference with the property.
It is therefore not clear from the footage what Mr Masawudu was doing at the location, who he was meeting or whether his presence was connected to the land dispute.
His denial that he is involved in any land dispute at Spintex Road therefore remains an important part of the story.
Photographs of the site show substantial construction activity, including block work, reinforced concrete columns and structures at various stages of construction.
The images indicate that development is ongoing on the disputed site despite the existence of the court proceedings and the order directing that the injunction processes be posted on the property.
This raises questions about who is presently exercising control over the land, under what authority and whether the continuing development is consistent with the rights being asserted by the competing parties.

The allegations involving Mr Masawudu have also raised questions about the conduct of public officials where private property disputes are concerned.
A public position, by itself, does not establish a proprietary interest in disputed private land. Any allegation that official influence was used in connection with possession or development of property would therefore require evidence and appropriate examination.
At this stage, however, the central legal issue remains the respective interests of the parties and whether any conduct complained of amounts to unlawful interference with those interests.
Mr Masawudu has denied any involvement in the Spintex land dispute and has rejected the suggestion that he has engaged persons described as land guards or used his official position to take over or control the disputed property.
The denial comes despite the video circulating in which he is reportedly seen at the disputed site.
The allegations against Mr Masawudu remain allegations and have not been judicially determined.
The eventual determination of the High Court, together with the documentary evidence and any admissible evidence concerning events at the site, will establish the respective legal rights and interests of the parties.