Kwaku Azar writes: State land is a public asset, and selling it below market value deprives the state of revenue…

Read Time: 2 minutes

Prof. Kwaku Azar

There is nothing wrong with acquiring state land legitimately, but obtaining it at a price below market value renders the acquisition illegitimate and results in financial loss to the state.

State land is a public asset, and selling it below market value deprives the state of revenue that could have been used to fund essential public services such as healthcare, education, or infrastructure.

Legitimate transactions should reflect the true market value to ensure fair competition. Selling state land at a discounted price creates an imbalance and raises questions about favoritism or corruption.

State resources are held in trust for the benefit of all citizens. Undervaluing and selling such assets suggest misuse of that trust and undermines confidence in governance.

Selling state land below market value often benefits a select few, leading to accusations of cronyism or corruption, which can further damage institutional integrity.

The Criminal Code prohibits such sales, as transactions that willfully cause financial loss to the state are illegal. It also bars acts of fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty.

Selling land below market value disrupts the broader land market, leading to unfair competition and devaluation of nearby properties.

How can a government justify selling state land valued at $500,000 for a mere $5,000 to a public officer, only to turn around and heavily tax a teacher who struggles to earn $5,000 in an entire year?

The irony and unfairness are staggering, as it prioritizes privilege over equity and burdens those who can least afford it while gifting public assets to the already advantaged.

If the government insists on such sales despite their recklessness, the first option should be given to the original owners. Subsequently, the land should be sold through a publicized auction that is open to all, ensuring transparency and fairness.

In summary, while it is acceptable to acquire state land under legitimate processes, undervaluing the asset harms the state and its citizens by depriving them of the fair value of a public resource.

Further selling such assets to public officers is highly problematic, as it creates conflicts of interest, fosters perceptions of favoritism or corruption, and undermines public trust in the fairness and integrity of government transactions.

ORAL must collate such transactions, the AuG should surcharge the lessees, and the AG should prosecute the enablers and beneficiaries.

Da Yie!