Introduction:

Despite continuous institutional reform efforts aimed at addressing chronic bottlenecks in natural resource management, legal pluralism remains a problem that complicates these endeavors and limits their effectiveness in Africa. This challenge is clearly evident in post-independence countries like Ghana, where customary institutions have acquired state characteristics and become key partners in land resource management. With the shift towards digital land governance systems, complex obstacles emerge in contexts where customary land institutions wield strong influence. These obstacles include ambiguous land boundaries, discrepancies over property rights, family settlement records, and the dependence of local identity on recognition by customary institutions. This article focuses on examining land-related disputes and the competing narratives and claims put forth by community members to protect their interests against expropriation or transfer to a mining company in the Ahafo-North and Prestea regions of Ghana. Known for their intensive gold mining and long history of extractive activities, these regions face deep-rooted competition among various stakeholders to achieve sustainable land resource management. The study clearly indicates that digitalization is not the ultimate solution to the ongoing challenges in land governance unless the existing tensions between the coexisting formal and customary institutions in this context are effectively addressed.

Axis One: Land Digitalization: A New Initiative Aimed at Transforming Land Administration into a Comprehensive Digital Model

Land digitalization is a strategic initiative aimed at transforming land administration and registration processes from traditional paper-based systems to integrated digital systems, ensuring data accuracy and accessibility. This transformation contributes to enhancing transparency and reducing real estate disputes, as well as accelerating the documentation of properties and updating real estate maps to keep pace with technological developments. Furthermore, digitalization provides a unified database that helps governments and decision-makers in sustainable urban planning and attracting investments.

On another note, this initiative empowers citizens to access land services faster and more efficiently via electronic platforms, thereby reducing bureaucracy and mitigating corruption risks. Digitalization also supports integration among various institutions involved in land management, such as land registries, municipalities, and urban planning authorities, to form a comprehensive information system that contributes to sustainable economic and social development.

Land system reform initiatives are returning to become a core focus of land governance policies, but this time through a modern framework represented by land digitalization. This shift is gaining increasing attention from international organizations and researchers, who view digitalization as a promising solution to overcome the traditional challenges of land administration in Africa. World Bank policies support this trend by considering the digitalization of land registries as a pivotal factor in improving property registration, enhancing transparency, and facilitating interaction among relevant parties by relying on advanced digital systems that support accurate boundary demarcation, dispute resolution, and optimal documentation of real estate rights.

By integrating land registries with other institutional records via digital interfaces, it becomes possible to automatically document ownership and legitimate interests (including the rights of women and third parties), and precisely control the transfer of rights, loan acquisition, or real estate market transactions.

Advanced technologies such as blockchain offer added value in this context, providing immutable records, high transparency, and means to bypass corruption and mismanagement. Registering properties on the blockchain facilitates identity and ownership verification and reduces real estate disputes.

For his part, Makiura emphasized that Japanese investors now view the integrated agricultural model in Ghana as a gold standard in the region, reflecting their growing confidence in its scalability and success. Degas’s plan for the next four years focuses on expanding its services in areas such as farmer financing, agricultural training, and satellite crop monitoring, in addition to strengthening cooperation in transportation, input provision, and linking farmers to markets.

The World Bank estimates that approximately 70% of the global population lacks formal land title deeds, which poses an obstacle to economic development and increases the risk of instability and economic insecurity, especially when lands are vulnerable to loss due to market pressures. For instance, a study conducted by Ubink and Quan in Ghana revealed that 76.9% of landowners did not seek formal or legal documentation of their ownership from the state, relying instead on witnessed local agreements to assert their property rights. Nevertheless, the success of the transition towards digitalization is tied to the reality of local governance, which varies significantly across countries and regions. Lemen et al. argue that effective land administration must be based on three essential elements: people, spatial units, and the rights linking them; these elements are directly influenced by broader governance dynamics.

In Ghana, land administration is subject to a dual system combining customary and legal systems, where the former controls approximately 80% of the lands compared to 20% managed by formal laws. Customary tenure is the most common means of land ownership by individuals, companies, and private entities, despite occasionally overlapping with conflicting claims arising from the legal system. Customary norms, despite the disputes accompanying them, have provided a foundation for belonging and social stability for decades, deriving their legitimacy from traditions that predate the modern state. Despite reform efforts in Africa, such as Ghana’s National Land Policy and the land administration information systems in Rwanda and Uganda, along with digitalization initiatives that have partially reduced disputes, the issue of multiple ownership claims persists. In 2002, 15,000 land-related cases were registered in Accra courts alone, reflecting the continued power of informal markets that hinder attempts to formalize sectors such as mining. Gender issues also remain prominent, as experiences in Rwanda, for example, reveal that digitalization has not prevented the emergence of land rights disputes within polygamous families lacking legally documented marriages.

Axis Two: A History of Land Governance Initiatives in Ghana and Ongoing Disputes

In Ghana, land governance initiatives have undergone multiple phases from the colonial era to the present day. The state began with attempts to regulate the relationship between customary systems and formal laws, as customary land ownership formed the cornerstone for managing nearly 80% of lands, while the remaining percentage was subject to state-enacted legal systems. Over time, reform efforts emerged through national programs such as the Land Administration Project (LAP) launched in the early 2000s with World Bank support, aiming to improve transparency and simplify registration procedures. These reforms were intended to reduce bureaucratic complexities and enhance tenure security, but implementation continued to face challenges related to poor institutional coordination and a lack of societal trust in certain formal mechanisms.

Despite these efforts, land disputes persist and pose a major challenge to development. This is due to overlapping jurisdictions between traditional leaders and the state, as well as conflicting property rights between individuals and groups, leading to frequent judicial disputes or even local clashes. Economic pressures and increasing demand for land for agricultural investment and mining have also exacerbated disputes, especially given the absence of effective mechanisms for dispute resolution or compensating affected parties. Therefore, land governance in Ghana remains an open field for continuous reform, with a need to align traditional and legal systems to ensure justice and stability.

Significant efforts have been made to address land disputes and enhance governance in Ghana within a dual legal environment governed simultaneously by formal legislation and traditional customs. The history of land reforms dates back to the 1880s, encompassing early legislative initiatives such as the Title Registration Ordinance of 1883, the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1894, and the Land Bills of 1897. However, these reforms failed to achieve their objectives effectively due to the lack of accurate maps and multiple registration processes, leading to phenomena such as dual land ownership and prolonged disputes.

Following the country’s independence in 1957, these colonial laws were repealed and replaced by the State Lands Act of 1962, which aimed to transfer feudal land ownership to the state, in line with President Kwame Nkrumah’s vision of reducing the influence of traditional chieftaincies. However, Nkrumah’s overthrow led to the Chieftaincy Act of 1971, which affirmed the autonomy of traditional institutions in land administration, a principle later enshrined in the 1992 Constitution. In the 1970s, the Land and Native Rights Act of 1979 addressed issues of historical expropriation but failed to consider the evolution of modern land markets, exacerbating disputes and complicating the real estate ownership landscape to this day.

In the 1980s, the government issued the Land Title Registration Law as part of structural adjustment programs focused on strengthening property rights; the law mandated land registration to facilitate deed documentation. However, these efforts did not prevent the accumulation of over 16,000 unresolved ownership cases resulting from multiple claims. In an attempt to address these dilemmas, the National Land Policy was adopted in 1999 to improve governance by tackling poor administration, tenure insecurity, lack of documentation, and the proliferation of disputes that overwhelmed the courts.

To implement this policy, the Land Administration Project (LAP) was launched with World Bank support, targeting the development of a reliable information system, record management, and expanded access to updated data, while minimizing interpersonal interactions to reduce disputes. The first phase (2003–2007) focused on integrating customary land administration by establishing Customary Land Secretariats (CLS), but this move faced criticism for being supply-driven and encountered resistance from traditional leaders who feared losing their authority. In 2008, the approach was modified to become demand-driven, such that Secretariats were only established at the leaders’ request, which bolstered their role in governance despite the continuous escalation of disputes.

As challenges mounted, Ghana introduced the Ghana Enterprise Land Information System (GELIS) in 2016 to streamline land administration and automate data retrieval to reduce disputes, before it was later developed into a more comprehensive digital platform for managing property cases. Despite the benefits these initiatives brought, problems of fragmented documentation and reliance on oral agreements—especially in customary systems—continue to hinder goal attainment, as land disputes, multiple claims, and the multiple sales of the same land remain recurrent issues. This underscores the urgent need to reassess the legal foundations and institutional frameworks governing land in Ghana, paving the way for more effective and sustainable future reforms.

Ghana realized early on the importance of adopting a comprehensive identity system as a fundamental pillar for building a modern and developed economy. Thus, in 2008, it launched the Smart ID project based on biometric data, providing every citizen with a Personal Identification Number (PIN). This system was not merely an identification tool but became a central element in enhancing transparency and integrating the informal sector into the formal economy. Today, the digital ID enables citizens to open bank accounts, register companies, obtain licenses, vote in elections via the biometric system, and link their commercial activities, travel, and border crossings to their official record. Furthermore, linking the digital ID to port procedures and import/export operations has played a major role in reducing smuggling and commercial fraud, alongside integrating financial and commercial flows into the formal economy. This step has contributed to improving tax collection and strengthening financial oversight. Additionally, it has enabled the state to conduct socio-economic planning based on accurate and updated data, representing a qualitative leap in governance capabilities compared to the previous approach that relied on incomplete estimates.

Axis Three: Divergent Narratives on Land Ownership and Exploitation Rights

Following the declaration of the Ahafo North area as a designated mining zone in 2017, a wave of questions arose within the local community. Residents questioned the legitimacy of the foreign mining company’s claim, especially since the area was not subject to Ghana’s Compulsory Land Acquisition Act, a law that allows the government to acquire land within the constitutional framework to implement development projects beneficial to society and the nation. The absence of this formal legal procedure constituted one of the main foundations of the local community’s objection to the company’s claim.

Although the concession granted to the mining company was initially met with strong resistance from residents, including traditional leaders, the discourse of these leaders later shifted towards a more positive and developmental stance after intensive rounds of consultations with company officials. Interviews with members of the five communities included in the concession revealed a unified narrative of these developments, with one stating: “We are not aware of all the details, but after numerous meetings between our leaders and company officials, our leaders eventually agreed to allow mining operations in the area”.

In an interview with one of the leaders regarding this position, he described the project as a valuable opportunity for the affected communities given the absence of major developmental projects in the region. He emphasized that the lack of employment opportunities among the youth made the project an outlet for their employment and the improvement of their conditions, highlighting the traditional leaders’ role in supporting the well-being and progress of their communities, and their vision of the project as a substantial contribution to local development.

However, the concerns of community members were not primarily focused on the developmental aspects of the project, but rather on securing their property rights and entitlements, and ensuring their return to their lands or receiving fair compensation if used for mining purposes. Many acknowledged their lack of official documentation proving their ownership, leading to the emergence of divergent narratives and claims among individuals attempting to prove their right to the land. A local informant summarized this complexity by noting that the situation has generated conflicting narratives and competing maneuvers in the pursuit of proving ownership.

The mining company asserts its commitment to the required procedures for obtaining land exploitation permits; however, community members question the legitimacy of this process. According to the formal framework, due legal process entails obtaining licenses from competent institutions such as the Lands Commission or the Minerals Commission, along with consulting customary authorities represented by chiefs and elders as custodians of the land. The company believes that completing these steps and declaring the area a mining zone justifies entering into negotiations with the community regarding resettlement and compensation. Nevertheless, the community raises questions about whether granting a mining concession alone is sufficient to expropriate them, and whether the procedures actually included consultations that respect the specificities of customary tenure systems.

This discrepancy in understanding reflects the impact of legal pluralism, which allows parallel legal frameworks to coexist in land administration, creating a persistent state of doubt and uncertainty. Previous studies show that such disputes are not new, as local communities have expressed dissatisfaction with their leaders’ decisions to allocate land to agricultural or mining companies without clear negotiations or agreements with the actual owners. A fundamental challenge emerges here in determining the authority mandated to consult or negotiate, especially when lands are jointly managed by customary and state institutions.

Despite the clarity of legislative frameworks—such as the Land Act of 2020 (Act 1036), the Environmental Protection Agency Act of 1994 (Act 490), and mining laws like the Minerals Commission Act of 1993 (Act 450) and the Minerals and Mining Act of 2006 (Act 703) and its amendments—which stipulate the necessity of identifying legitimate owners in early stages through stakeholder consultations (Section 244 of the Land Act), practical implementation remains complex. The coexistence of legal and customary systems, combined with local communities’ poor awareness of these procedures, leads to increasing disputes and misunderstandings. This complexity may also be deliberately exploited by active actors to manipulate the system to serve their own interests, thereby weakening the fairness and effectiveness of land governance.

Axis Four: Land Authority, Decision-Making Powers, and Their Relationship to Ownership and Livelihoods

Land authority is one of the fundamental pillars of natural resource management, as laws and regulations determine how land is acquired, used, and transferred. Decision-making powers are often distributed among state institutions, local authorities, and traditional leaderships, reflecting an overlap of legal systems and customary visions. This distribution of powers can create opportunities for cooperation and integration, but simultaneously, it may pave the way for disputes over legitimacy and jurisdiction, particularly in environments characterized by multiple legal frameworks.

Land is inextricably linked to the concept of ownership and livelihoods, forming the basis of agricultural, pastoral, and mining activities, as well as serving as the guarantor of economic and social security for families and communities. Owning land or having the right to use it provides individuals and companies with material and moral resources, whereas the absence of clear ownership guarantees leads to livelihood vulnerability and deepens social disparities. Consequently, regulating land authority in a fair and transparent manner is a primary prerequisite for achieving sustainable development and protecting local communities’ rights.

Following the granting of mining concessions, local communities are often exposed to disruptions that affect their traditional livelihoods, threatening their economic stability and leaving widespread social and environmental repercussions. In areas like Ahafo North and Prestea, residents face a state of insecurity due to the overlap of their traditional activities with the operations of new or existing companies. The close connection between land and livelihoods exacerbates the intensity of conflicts and disputes over land rights between local communities and these companies.

In this case, mining companies relied on national legal frameworks to assert their ownership claims. Various narratives highlight the scale of the conflict over land rights in mining communities. However, a representative of one company offered a contrasting viewpoint, explaining that some of these communities, like Bundaye, were established long ago and developed historically due to the mine’s presence. He asserted that the company is not dispossessing residents of their land, but rather attempting to accommodate them by allowing them to mine within its concession. According to him, small-scale miners are permitted to operate until it is time for the company to commence operations in a specific area, at which point they are asked to relocate to another site. He clarified, stating:

“It’s not as if we are forcing them off their land; we merely ask them to stop mining in a specific location when we are ready to start operations there. We also give them sufficient time to move to another area. Thus, it cannot be considered an outright eviction or total loss of land.”

In contrast, participants in Ahafo North expressed profound concerns about the potential consequences of losing their lands to the mining company, viewing it as an existential catastrophe. They perceived that the issue goes beyond economic uncertainty to encompass emotional and symbolic ties connecting them to the land, which serves as a source of livelihood and a pillar of belonging and social cohesion. One head of household summarized these fears, saying:

“Losing our land to a mining company would be a personal failure; it is the cornerstone that binds my family together and provides our livelihood. The idea of surrendering our inherited legacy to a stranger [i.e., the company] and giving up our cherished traditions is inconceivable to me as a head of household.”

Pros and Cons of Digitalizing Land Governance

The empirical findings of this study suggest that transitioning towards digital land governance systems in Ghana could exacerbate existing conflicts unless carefully managed. Land administration involves registering the relationship between individuals and land, documenting property rights, and ensuring easy access to and updating of records. According to Lemen et al., land administration is based on three main elements: people, spatial units, and the rights linking them. However, these elements are often characterized by multiplicity, whether in terms of multiple individuals, overlapping rights, or spatial subdivision, which complicates coordination and large-scale management.

Proponents of digitalization argue that it enables the construction of transparent and reliable record-keeping systems, assisting governments in verifying owners’ identities, clarifying property ownership, and reducing conflicting claims. However, research reveals that digitalization—especially via technologies like blockchain—may turn into a global force that promotes the commodification of information and data, which could entrench existing inequalities. For example, studies from Zambia warn that digitalization, if unaccompanied by oversight and accountability mechanisms, could perpetuate capitalist structures and marginalize vulnerable groups. In this context, some individuals might benefit from formalizing their ownership, while others, particularly those lacking financial resources, find themselves in a vulnerable position, leading to a deepening digital divide and exacerbated social disparities.

In Ghana, local authorities and customary institutions oversee the land acquisition and distribution process, which often results in fragmented and uneven documentation. Many land rights are managed through oral agreements—such as usufruct rights—that are rarely officially registered. The pressure for land registration and record digitalization intensifies in mineral-rich areas, where competition among the government, local communities, and stakeholders escalates. Although the Land Act of 2020 (Act 1036), particularly Sections 1 to 12 and Chapter Five, provides an important legal framework that enhances ownership clarity and supports digitalization, these provisions often remain out of reach for local communities, especially under the dominance of customary tenure systems.

This gap highlights the necessity of moving beyond legal reforms towards investing in community awareness, local participation, and fostering cooperation between legal and customary actors to ensure the inclusivity and fairness of digital systems. Nevertheless, if implemented without regard for customary arrangements or undocumented claims, digitalization could turn into a soft tool for dispossession, where individuals who have lived on and cultivated lands for generations could be excluded simply because they lack formal title deeds. This dispossession occurs quietly through digital records and bureaucratic systems, making it difficult to resist and exacerbating social inequalities. Hence, the success of the digital transformation in Ghana requires strong foundational steps in governance and a participatory approach that accommodates the diversity in ownership arrangements, avoiding turning digitalization from a reform tool into an instrument of exclusion.

Conclusion

This article argues the need to approach with caution the overly optimistic view that digital transformation represents a comprehensive solution to complex land governance issues in Africa, particularly in contexts of legal pluralism where customary and legal institutions derive their legitimacy differently. The push towards digital platforms should not overlook fundamental challenges such as ambiguous land boundaries, conflicting ownership narratives, and indigenous populations’ rights to historically contested lands. Consequently, successful digital transformation demands a comprehensive approach that considers digital literacy, expanded access to information, and an understanding of the cultural, historical, and social dynamics affecting land ownership arrangements. It warns that ignoring these dimensions could ignite new conflicts, especially in areas dominated by customary tenure systems. Although digital tools may enhance transparency and efficiency in documenting rights and resolving disputes, their design must stem from a deep understanding of the complexities of customary areas, where boundaries are often vague and ownership structures are intertwined. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop formal mechanisms that integrate customary claims into state databases, ensuring that traditional landowners are not marginalized in the digitalization trajectory.

In conclusion, it is evident that legal pluralism continues to cast its shadow over land administration in Ghana, similarly reflecting its impacts on the course of digital land governance. Instead of being a definitive solution, digitalization often exposes existing structural challenges and reproduces them in new forms. The continuous overlap between customary and legal systems, coupled with ambiguous rights and conflicting ownership narratives, makes it difficult to achieve cohesive and transparent land administration. Therefore, the success of digitalization in this context remains contingent upon the ability to integrate customary and legal systems within a participatory framework that acknowledges the multiplicity of legitimacy sources and balances technical efficiency with the protection of local communities’ rights. In this sense, digital governance is both an opportunity and a test: an opportunity to rebuild trust and transparency, and a test of the state’s and society’s ability to forge comprehensive and equitable solutions for land administration.