The crux of the dispute revolves around two plots of land located in Ahenema Kokoben, a subject of contention between Reuben Solomon Jabari, the NDC Branch Chairman for Island City, and Prophet Ebenezer Adarkwa Yiadom, also known as Opambour, the founder of the Ebenezer Miracle Worship Centre. Opambour, in a widely circulated video, accused Jabari of forcefully seizing his land following the NDC’s ascension to power, portraying the act as a betrayal considering his alleged support for the party. He issued stern warnings, laced with spiritual threats, against anyone, including traditional leaders, from encroaching upon the land, even threatening to invoke curses upon a Chief and his family.
Jabari, however, vehemently denies Opambour’s allegations, asserting that he legally acquired the two plots of land and possesses the necessary documentation to substantiate his ownership. He dismisses Opambour’s narrative as a fabrication intended to mislead the public. Jabari contends that the land dispute predates the NDC’s rise to power, tracing its origins back more than two years. He accuses Opambour of employing deceptive tactics to secure new land documents from traditional authorities by falsely claiming the loss of the original ones.
Jabari’s account paints a picture of a calculated scheme by Opambour to manipulate the situation. He alleges that Opambour misled the chiefs into believing his land documents were missing, prompting them to reissue new ones. This, according to Jabari, forms the basis of the ongoing dispute, and he insists on upholding his legal ownership of the land. He further reveals that the Asafohene, a local traditional leader, has made multiple attempts, at least eight times, to mediate the conflict. However, Opambour has consistently refused to participate in these mediation efforts, further exacerbating the situation.
Jabari accuses Opambour of leveraging his public persona and religious platform to intimidate and exert undue pressure. He believes Opambour is attempting to exploit his church and public image to bully him into relinquishing the land. However, Jabari remains resolute, declaring his unwavering commitment to defending his legal rights through all available legal avenues. He vows to resist Opambour’s alleged intimidation tactics and pursue legal recourse to protect his ownership of the disputed land. Jabari emphasizes his commitment to a legal resolution, emphasizing that he acquired the land legally and will not be swayed by Opambour’s influence or threats.
This land dispute highlights the complexities of land ownership and the potential for conflicts to arise, especially when influential figures are involved. The clash between Jabari’s assertion of legal ownership and Opambour’s claims of forceful seizure underlines the importance of due process and legal documentation in resolving such disputes. The involvement of traditional authorities, as evidenced by the Asafohene’s mediation attempts, also underscores the role of traditional structures in land governance and conflict resolution within the community.
The case also underscores the potential for misuse of power and influence, particularly when religious figures are involved. Jabari’s accusations against Opambour suggest an attempt to leverage religious authority and public image to exert pressure and influence the outcome of the land dispute. The situation underscores the necessity for impartiality and adherence to legal processes to ensure fair and just resolutions in land disputes, irrespective of the parties involved. The case remains a complex interplay of legal claims, traditional authority, and public image, highlighting the challenges of navigating land disputes in a context of power dynamics and competing interests.
