In this publication, I operate under certain assumptions: first, that the National Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana, Rt. Rev. Dr. Abraham Nana Opare Kwakye, is a PhD holder with the intellectual capacity to recognize and appropriately address wrongdoing within the Church he leads. Secondly, I believe that as a “man of God”—a term I use cautiously given the concerning actions of some officials at the Church’s headquarters in Osu, Kuku Hill and Banka—he would demonstrate principled leadership. Unfortunately, the Church’s leaders have not yet demonstrated such leadership, at least to date. I remain hopeful that they will apply biblical teachings to restore a measure of respect and goodwill, which presently appears to be lacking within the Church.
I am publishing this sequel to my previous article in the New Crusading Guide, dated 14 January 2026, titled “Citizen Questions the Conduct of the Leadership of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana.” In that publication, I stated that the Banka Presbyterian Church had taken possession of my mother’s land. I asserted that the land on which the local church, the Banka International School, and the church offices are located rightfully belongs to the late Nana Adwoa Donkor. Following the publication, my daughter received a phone call from Rev. Patrick Nii Owusu Armah, the property manager, inviting her to the Church headquarters for a discussion on the matter. She accepted the invitation and attended the meeting on 22 January 2026.
During the meeting, my daughter and the Church’s representatives assigned to investigate the matter agreed to travel to Banka for a fact-finding mission to establish the rightful owner of the land. Before the Church’s delegation arrived, Mr. Kwame Antwi, a presbyter of the church, visited Nana Abena Sempe, the oldest woman in town and a friend of my late mother, in an attempt to persuade her to inform the delegation that the land belongs to the Church. She firmly refused, maintaining that the land rightfully belongs to my mother.
On February 11, 2026, we met with the Church’s delegation at Banka. What was intended to be a straightforward fact-finding mission shifted into a conciliatory discussion. The delegation declined my daughter’s request to visit Nana Abena Sempe to verify the rightful ownership of the land. They also rejected her suggestion to tour the land, which was a necessary step in fully understanding the matter. They did not permit my family to call our witnesses, raising serious concerns regarding the objectivity and purpose of the process, which appeared to support pre-determined claims to my mother’s land.
During the meeting, they first stated that the land was acquired in 1951. Shortly thereafter, they claimed it was gifted to them by a supposed Nana Kwakye. To add to the inconsistency, they further alleged that they had contacted the Queenmother of Banka, Nana Basahyia Anima Framo, who supposedly informed them that the land actually belonged to Nana Owusu. As we attempted to understand these contradictory statements, they introduced a witness, Miss Abena Kaya, who claimed that the land was rightfully her late mother’s, Nana Gyeabour, who had allegedly gifted it to the Church.
These conflicting accounts, coupled with the evident disregard for the memory of my late mother, prompted Nana Amma Serwaa, a respected elder of the Church, to respond. She firmly asserted that the land rightfully belongs to my mother, Nana Adwoa Donkor, recounting a visit she made with the late Opanin Charles Kwaku Duah and Nana Kwakye Swanzy II, during which they requested permission from my mother to use the land for a school—permission she graciously granted for use, not transfer of ownership. These testimonies, along with others from earlier dates, were recorded for future reference.
While Nana Adwoa Serwaa’s testimony strongly supports my mother’s ownership of the land, there remains a critical issue that requires clarification to establish the truth conclusively. According to her testimony, which lacks important detail, my mother was over 100 years old at the time, and her cognitive capacity was limited. It is therefore highly unlikely that she would have agreed to relinquish valuable real estate without consulting her family. The suggestion that such a meeting occurred raises serious concerns. Furthermore, if Nana Adwoa Serwaa visited my mother with two male elders from the Church as witnesses to a land transfer, as claimed, it is unclear why my mother was not afforded the opportunity to involve her family members, which is a widely recognized customary practice in Ghana.
On their way to Accra, my son contacted Rev. Patrick Nii Owusu Armah to inquire about the findings from the mission. According to him, the land belongs to “Amma’s grandmother.” Amma is my daughter and, by bloodline, a granddaughter of Nana Adwoa Donkor. In a follow-up call, Rev. Patrick Nii Owusu Armah informed my daughter that the land originally belonged to her grandmother and was later gifted to the Church. He then asked what the next steps should be and committed to providing my son and daughter with a report on March 16.
However, on March 19th, when my daughter requested a copy of the report, she was instead asked to attend in person. This was a departure from the initial agreement that the report would be provided directly to the family. Rev. Patrick Nii Owusu Armah explained that it would be preferable for him to read the report aloud rather than provide a copy, citing concerns about misinterpretation. This approach raises concerns regarding transparency and consistency with earlier communications.
Let me return to the leadership of the Church, where the issue ultimately resides and which warrants direct attention. Firstly, the theft of my mother’s land, which spans several acres, did not occur in isolation. The events in question appear to have occurred with the knowledge of both the Akyem Oda Branch of the Presbyterian Church and the National Headquarters. In other words, they were carried out with the involvement of middle and upper levels of leadership. Furthermore, this took place during the tenure of various national moderators, including Rt. Rev. Dr. Abraham Nana Opare Kwakye, whose role in this matter requires clarification. The clearance and funding for the construction of the church, school, and offices originated from the national headquarters.
I therefore respectfully request that Rt. Rev. Dr. Abraham Nana Opare Kwakye confirm or clarify his knowledge of this matter. Until such clarification is provided, it remains reasonable to question the basis upon which the Church proceeded, particularly in the absence of opposition at the time. This situation may have broader implications for both the leadership and the institution.
On 20 March, my son again discussed with Rev. Patrick Nii Owusu Armah the status of the report and the ownership of the land. He reiterated that the land belonged to my late mother and had been donated to the Church. He expressed concern regarding the language used in my earlier publication and stated that children were not present at the time the land was reportedly gifted. This response appears to shift attention away from the central issue—namely, the legitimacy of the Church’s claim to the land. He further asked, “Where was the family when the Church was building structures on the land?”—a question that does not address the issue of ownership or authorization.
Despite ongoing efforts to resolve this matter amicably, the Church proceeded on 22 March 2026 to host a harvest event on the disputed land, inviting multiple congregations. This occurred despite prior communication with the national moderator, headquarters, and local leadership seeking cooperation and resolution. We also understand that the Church has prepared a report acknowledging that the property does not belong to them. However, this report has not been shared with the rightful owners. This lack of disclosure limits transparency and prevents meaningful progress toward resolution.
The conduct of the Church’s leadership, including reliance on inconsistent accounts and the absence of clear documentation, raises serious concerns regarding accountability and transparency. The overall handling of this matter suggests delay rather than resolution, placing an increasing burden on the rightful owners. It may also reflect an institutional posture that risks discouraging rightful claims through prolonged processes.
Our objective remains to reclaim the property belonging to our late mother, Nana Adwoa Donkor, and to ensure that her dignity and legacy are respected. We remain committed to resolving this matter amicably and without litigation.
Accordingly, we formally request:
- Immediate provision of the full written report;
- Formal confirmation of the Church’s position regarding ownership;
- Disclosure of all documentation supporting any claim to the land;
- Immediate suspension of all activities on the disputed property.
On 24 March 2026, my daughter visited the Church’s headquarters to obtain the report. Rev. Patrick Nii Owusu Armah informed her that the report was not ready. It was only on 31 March 2026 that my family was finally provided with a copy. The report—signed and dated 30 March 2026 by the Clerk of the General Assembly, Rev. David Aboage-Danquah—constitutes yet another contrived and calculated fabrication. It is a document devoid of specificity, substance, and the most rudimentary standards expected of any legitimate fact-finding process. It states, without evidence or supporting detail, that “[the Presbyterian Church of Ghana] did not fraudulently acquire the parcel of land … and that the land was willingly and voluntarily granted to the Church [and that they] have been in effective possession and control of the disputed area for several years.”
This is not merely an inadequate report—it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Its sweeping conclusions, presented without a single verifiable fact, reveal not negligence but a conscious effort to obscure, distort, and sanitize what is, in substance, an act of unlawful appropriation. That such a document is produced under the authority of a Christian institution makes the deception not only legally troubling but morally reprehensible.
Moreover, the report’s conspicuous silence on the most basic and indispensable facts—namely, the identity of the alleged grantor and the date of acquisition—betrays an intentional evasion. This omission is not incidental; it is indicative of a calculated attempt to shield the truth from scrutiny. Such conduct does not reflect oversight—it reflects willful concealment and institutional complicity.
While we remain open to an amicable resolution, we will not allow this matter to be buried under fabricated narratives and clerical endorsement. We will be initiating legal proceedings to address what is, plainly stated, an act of dispossession and robbery carried out under the guise of ecclesiastical authority by a clique of clergy. Our position remains firm: we will pursue a just, lawful, and transparent resolution through the courts.
In doing so, I respectfully remind the leadership of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana of the very principles they are entrusted to uphold. As written in 1 Kings 20:11, “Let not him that girdeth on his armour boast himself as he that putteth it off.” Proverbs 16:18 warns, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” And Proverbs 10:9 states, “Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out.” These are not mere quotations—they are moral imperatives. To invoke faith while engaging in deception is to betray both the law and the Gospel itself.
Further publications will follow as we pursue this matter before the courts.
Sincerely yours,
Paulina Agyekumwaa
