Demolitions for National Cathedral was most reckless decision – Ablakwa

North Tongu Member of Parliament, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa is still overly worried about President Nana Akufo-Addo government’s decision to pull down a couple of state structures to pave way for the construction of the National Cathedral.

The legislator who is leading a campaign against some infractions over the controversial project says the decision by President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to demolish the buildings is by far the most reckless decision in the history of the country.

The scholarship secretariat, passport office, judicial training institute and residence of the Malian Ambassador among others were all razed to the ground for the National Cathedral’s construction works.

Speaking to Umaru Sanda Amadu on Face to Face on Citi TV, Mr. Ablakwa intimated that:

“Consider the compensation burden on the Ghanaian taxpayer because of the very mindless and reckless decision to site this project at a place where we had so many existing edifices that the President decides to pull down. That has been the most reckless decision ever taken by any President. The cost implication [is really worrying].”

“It grieves my heart so much that the Scholarship Secretariat is a building that in other jurisdictions is preserved so much because of the great history of the icons that went through the secretariat.”

Critics have questioned the rationale behind the demolition of all buildings at the Ridge enclave where the National Cathedral is sited.

For instance, the relocation of the passport office was met with stiff opposition particularly from the Minority in Parliament.

The office was subsequently relocated at a supposed cost of GHS9.2 million.

The relocation and the building of the cathedral coincidentally came at a time when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was already moving to acquire an ultra-modern facility to roll out its chip-embedded passport application.

Bungalows housing some Appeal Court justices, were also demolished by the government. The cost of rent for these judges became a subject of controversy over concerns of its burden on the insufficient public purse.