The way our political leaders quickly change the national conversation around flooding and sanitation depending on who occupies political office needs to be studied in the premier universities of the world.
When political parties are in opposition and floods destroy homes, take lives, or expose poor sanitation and drainage systems, responsibility is usually placed where it naturally belongs — on the government, public institutions, city authorities, and the leadership responsible for planning, enforcement, drainage maintenance, and waste management. Opposition politicians often speak passionately about failed governance, neglected gutters, poor urban planning, weak enforcement, and institutional incompetence.
But once political power changes hands, the conversation often changes too.
Suddenly, the focus shifts almost entirely toward the ordinary citizen. Flooding becomes a story of indiscipline. Citizens are blamed for building wrongly, dumping waste, and violating planning regulations, while demolitions and punitive actions quickly become the dominant public response.
Yet the deeper structural questions often remain unanswered. Why are drains not maintained properly?
Why are waterways not regularly dredged before the rainy season?
Why are assemblies failing to enforce regulations early enough to prevent these situations?
Why do the same flooding problems continue to repeat themselves year after year under different governments?
Recently, President John Mahama also attributed many of these problems to indiscipline among the public. Certainly, citizen behaviour contributes to the problem. Nobody can honestly deny that. However, the more uncomfortable question is whether the greater indiscipline may now exist within the very institutions and leadership structures responsible for managing, planning, supervising, and enforcing order within our communities.
Many of us agree with the assertion that Ghana’s flooding and sanitation challenges are largely matters of indiscipline. However, the issue becomes more complex when we acknowledge that indiscipline does not begin only with ordinary citizens — it often begins with leadership and the institutions entrusted with managing our communities.
Why do I say this?
Because our communities are managed and organized by institutions that ultimately fall under the authority of the Executive through appointed officials. Among the most important of these institutions are the District, Municipal and Metropolitan Assemblies. These assemblies are responsible for critical functions that directly affect planning, sanitation, infrastructure, and public order.
Their responsibilities include local development planning, sanitation management, drainage maintenance, enforcement of by-laws, road infrastructure, markets, public facilities, and environmental protection. If these institutions are effectively performing these duties, then why do we continue witnessing the same preventable disasters year after year?
Yes, there is indiscipline among some citizens. Nobody can deny that. But the more uncomfortable question is whether the greater indiscipline now exists within the very institutions and leadership structures responsible for enforcing the rules.
The greater responsibility for discipline must rest with leadership and public institutions, not the ordinary citizen. Those entrusted with authority are expected to set the example, enforce the rules fairly, plan responsibly, and protect the public interest. When leadership fails in discipline, supervision, and accountability, the consequences are often multiplied across the entire society.
Ordinary citizens certainly have responsibilities. But citizens can only operate within the systems created and supervised by leadership. When institutions fail in planning, enforcement, supervision, and accountability, society itself eventually begins to reflect that failure.
If we are serious about addressing flooding, sanitation challenges, and poor urban planning, then we must be willing to examine not only the conduct of citizens, but also the performance of the institutions and leaders established to manage these problems.
Planning Failures and the Demolition Culture Take planning, for example.
Many of our communities are poorly planned. Buildings continue to spring up in waterways, flood-prone areas, and locations that clearly should never have been developed. In many cases, assemblies appear helpless while these structures are being erected. Some developments receive permits, others are ignored, and violations are often allowed to continue openly for years without intervention.
Yet once construction is completed and families have invested their life savings, officials suddenly appear with bulldozers and television cameras to demonstrate authority through demolition exercises.
If a structure was illegal from the very beginning, why was enforcement absent at the very beginning? Why do we wait until homes, shops, and investments are fully completed before acting?
That too is a form of indiscipline.
Many citizens do not support the idea that demolition should automatically become the preferred solution after buildings have already been completed and people have invested their entire savings. Certainly, there are situations where demolition may become unavoidable for public safety reasons. But destruction should not become the default response to every failure of planning and enforcement.
In many situations, engineering solutions, redesigns, drainage improvements, flood mitigation measures, protective infrastructure, and other technical interventions should first be explored before resorting to destruction. The objective should be to solve the problem while minimizing harm to citizens who may have acted in good faith.
What makes the situation even more troubling is that, in some instances, state institutions and public officials were themselves involved in allocating, approving, supervising, or failing to prevent some of the very developments that are later declared illegal or unsuitable for habitation. Yet when the consequences emerge, it is often the ordinary citizen who bears the full burden.
The people are repeatedly portrayed as the problem, but many of them are also victims of a failed system.
If assemblies had enforced regulations from the beginning, many illegal structures would never have been built.
If land administration systems were properly coordinated and transparent, many innocent buyers would not unknowingly purchase land in restricted areas.
If court processes relating to planning violations were swift and effective, deterrence would be stronger.
Perhaps what Ghana needs is not merely another round of demolitions. The role of government should be to protect, improve, and enhance the lives of citizens — not to become associated primarily with destruction.
Unfortunately, there is a growing public perception that institutions often respond to problems with punitive or destructive measures, even when those problems were allowed to develop through earlier failures of planning, enforcement, supervision, or oversight.
A state that has played a role — through inaction, weak enforcement, poor planning, negligence, or administrative failure — in creating a problem should also be committed to finding practical, humane, and forward-looking solutions.
The objective should be prevention, correction, and improvement, not merely punishment after the damage has already occurred. Government exists not only to enforce the law, but also to create systems that prevent avoidable harm and protect citizens from the consequences of institutional failure.
Accountability Must Apply to Leadership Too
The greater burden of discipline lies with leadership and public institutions, not the ordinary citizen. Those entrusted with authority are expected to set the standard, enforce the rules fairly, and manage society responsibly. When leadership fails in discipline, supervision, and accountability, the effects are often multiplied across the entire society.
Where negligence, misconduct, corruption, abuse of authority, or dereliction of duty contributes to these disasters, there must be meaningful consequences and stronger forms of deterrence.
Otherwise, we risk creating a system where public officials make costly mistakes without consequence while citizens pay the ultimate price.
Recently, the Greater Accra Regional Minister stated that an official who broke the rules had been transferred to the Northern Region as punishment, while those affected suffered the demolition of their homes.
How does this deter others within the public service from committing similar acts?
This too raises important questions about discipline and accountability within leadership.
If public officials contribute to decisions or failures that result in losses for citizens, should administrative transfers alone be regarded as sufficient consequences?
More importantly, what measures are being put in place to ensure that such failures do not happen again?
We have also observed that instead of the Regional Minister and the various Assemblies coming together to clean gutters, dredge major waterways, and implement engineering solutions that better prepare communities for flooding when the raining season is approaching, significant attention and resources have instead been devoted to demolition exercises, making these the only solutions they have.
For years, that appears to have been the preferred approach. Yet the heavy rains continue to expose the same vulnerabilities.
The demolitions have not solved the problem.
What is even more surprising is that after recent floods led to inundated homes, damaged buildings, and hardship for many families, the national conversation did not appear to focus sufficiently on long-term solutions and accountability.
At a time when citizens were dealing with the consequences of failed planning and inadequate preparation, public attention was also being drawn toward awards and recognition ceremonies.
This raises a simple question:
By what criteria should public officials be evaluated and celebrated?
Should recognition be based primarily on visibility and activities, or on measurable improvements in sanitation, drainage, infrastructure maintenance, and the quality of life of citizens?
Public recognition certainly has its place. However, the most meaningful measure of performance is whether communities are becoming safer, cleaner, and more resilient.
Ultimately, citizens are less interested in awards than they are in results.
Drainage, Roads and Infrastructure Then there is the issue of drainage.
Many communities lack adequate gutters and drainage systems. Where gutters exist, many are exposed, poorly maintained, or partially blocked. Some become clogged through indiscriminate dumping, while others are gradually filled by sand, debris, weeds, runoff, and erosion because roads were poorly designed without proper pavements and erosion-control systems.
Drive through many towns across Ghana and you will find gutters that have virtually disappeared beneath layers of sand and weeds. In some places, drains have almost become extensions of the road because maintenance has been neglected for years.
Who is responsible for ensuring these drains remain functional? Is it solely the ordinary citizen?
Assemblies are expected to inspect, maintain, enforce, and act proactively. Yet in many cases, they do not.
Roads are frequently cut open by individuals, utility providers, and public institutions to install infrastructure, but many are inadequately restored afterwards. What begins as a small defect often develops into major road deterioration, imposing significant costs on both the state and road users.
This recurring problem raises serious questions about coordination, supervision, and accountability in the management of public infrastructure.
Even prime areas such as Cantonments have not been spared from poor infrastructure management and weak enforcement, with issues such as open defecation around areas like AU Village.
One must ask:
When were major drainage channels last comprehensively dredged and expanded?
When was the last nationwide programme dedicated specifically to clearing, rehabilitating, and expanding drains before the onset of the rainy season?
What is the current state of major drains such as the Odaw and other waterways responsible for carrying floodwaters safely into the sea?
If drainage infrastructure had been properly maintained, waterways regularly dredged, and drainage networks expanded to match population growth, many communities would not be flooding repeatedly.
In places such as Ashaiman, Katamanso, Community 25, Dawhenya, and many other rapidly growing communities, residents continue to struggle with poor roads and inadequate drainage.
Sometimes it feels as though only a few privileged parts of Accra receive consistent attention while many other communities are left to cope with deteriorating infrastructure.
Are the people in these communities not Ghanaians? Do they not pay taxes?
Do they not deserve safe roads and proper drainage systems?
Another uncomfortable truth is that poor-quality infrastructure itself often contributes to the problem. Contracts are awarded, projects are executed, yet many roads and drains deteriorate far sooner than they should.
Citizens observe these realities and naturally question whether value for money is truly being achieved.
Following the recent floods, groups such as the Buzz Stop Boys highlighted numerous blocked drains and neglected waterways across the country. If volunteers can identify these problems with limited resources, surely our assemblies, engineers, environmental officers, and planning departments should be able to identify and address them before disaster strikes.
Waste Management and Service Delivery The problem extends to waste management.
Residents pay for waste collection services, yet there are countless instances where bins remain uncollected for days or even weeks. As waste piles up, some inevitably finds its way into gutters and waterways.
When floods occur, the blame falls entirely on the public, while little attention is given to the service failures that contributed to the situation.
Who should be held accountable when contracted waste management companies fail to perform?
We are often told that the nation lacks resources. Yet somehow, resources are found for many activities that appear less urgent than protecting lives and property from floods.
When disaster strikes, the national response often focuses more on reactive measures, public relations exercises, and assigning blame rather than addressing the deeper institutional and systemic failures that allowed the problem to develop in the first place.
.
A Better Way Forward
The truth is that institutions exist precisely because citizens alone cannot manage these complex responsibilities.
That is why taxpayers fund them.
That is why public officials are appointed. That is why governments are elected.
If Ghana truly wants to address these recurring challenges, then perhaps we need a national campaign focused on prevention.
A campaign centred on:
- Cleaning and desilting drains.
- Dredging major waterways.
- Expanding drainage infrastructure.
- Enforcing planning regulations early.
- Holding contractors accountable.
- Improving waste collection.
- Protecting wetlands and Ramsar sites.
- Educating citizens while also enforcing the law fairly and consistently.
Imagine if every District Assembly was tasked with an annual “Operation Clean the Gutters” programme before the onset of the major rainy season.
Imagine if assemblies were evaluated and ranked based on sanitation, drainage maintenance, and flood preparedness.
Imagine if preventive action received as much publicity and attention as demolition exercises. That would save lives.
That would protect homes.
That would demonstrate leadership. So yes, indiscipline is real.
But it is not confined to ordinary citizens.
It exists wherever responsibilities are neglected, rules are selectively enforced, corruption is tolerated, planning is ignored, and public institutions fail to act.
The indiscipline we see in our communities is often a reflection of the indiscipline within the very systems meant to govern them.
Leadership sets the tone.
And if Ghana truly wants to solve these problems, then discipline must be demanded not only from citizens, but also — and even more importantly — from the institutions and leaders entrusted with serving them.
