When Homecoming Meets a Land War: Asebu’s Reckoning with Ghana’s ‘Year of Return’

In the rolling green of Ghana’s Central Region, the town of Asebu should be basking in the glow of a global homecoming. Instead, its streets echo with protest chants. Placards read “Our land is our life” and “Heritage without justice is theft.”

The flashpoint is the Pan African Village, a flagship resettlement site for diaspora returnees under Ghana’s celebrated Year of Return and its successor, Beyond the Return. Marketed as a living bridge between Africa and its scattered descendants, the project has drawn hundreds of African Americans and Caribbeans seeking to reconnect with ancestral soil. But for many Asebu residents, that bridge has been built over their own fields.

The Promise

Launched in 2019, the Year of Return was a masterstroke of cultural diplomacy — part commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the first recorded arrival of enslaved Africans in Virginia, part tourism‑driven economic strategy. It offered citizenship pathways, investment opportunities, and symbolic homecomings at Cape Coast and Elmina castles.

By 2024, the programme had evolved into Beyond the Return, with land‑for‑settlement schemes like Pan African Village pitched as a way to anchor returnees in Ghana’s social and economic fabric. The government framed it as a win‑win: diaspora capital would fund housing, tourism, and small businesses, while rural communities would benefit from jobs and infrastructure.

The Protest

In March 2025, the mood shifted. Farmers in Asebu accused local chiefs and project intermediaries of reallocating communal land without consent. “They stole our land in broad daylight,” said 63‑year‑old farmer Kojo Amissah, whose family has cultivated the same plot for generations.

Protesters allege that parcels earmarked for diaspora housing were once subsistence farms, and that compensation — where offered — was inadequate. The Africa Report describes a “heated land dispute” in which residents face displacement while returnees, often with greater purchasing power, secure prime plots.

The grievances go beyond economics. For many locals, the land is tied to identity, lineage, and spiritual heritage. Losing it severs more than an income stream — it erodes a sense of belonging.

The Diaspora View

For many returnees, the backlash is bewildering. In interviews with New Lines Magazine, African Americans spoke of the Year of Return as a deeply personal journey — a chance to escape systemic racism abroad and invest in a continent they consider home.

Some say they were assured the land was legitimately acquired, and that they contribute to local economies through construction, tourism, and philanthropy. “We came here to reconnect, not to dispossess,” one returnee told New Lines, adding that the dispute has left some feeling caught between their dreams and the realities of Ghana’s land politics.

How Ghana’s Land System Works — and Fails

Ghana’s land tenure system is a complex blend of statutory law and customary authority. Roughly 80% of land is held under customary tenure, administered by chiefs, family heads, or clan leaders. These custodians can allocate land, but are expected to act in trust for their communities.

In practice, as land governance experts note, weak oversight, opaque record‑keeping, and the absence of enforceable community consent mechanisms create fertile ground for disputes. The Lands Commission is tasked with registration and regulation, but its reach is limited when allocations occur entirely within customary systems.

In Asebu, critics allege that chiefs allocated land to the Pan African Village without broad consultation, and that the state failed to intervene early enough to mediate.

Heritage Tourism’s Double‑Edged Sword

Heritage tourism has been a bright spot in Ghana’s economy. The Year of Return reportedly generated over $1.9 billion in 2019 alone, according to the Ghana Tourism Authority. Hotels, tour operators, and craft markets in Cape Coast and Accra saw record business.

But as scholars of heritage economies point out, the benefits are uneven. Urban centres and tourism operators capture much of the revenue, while rural “host” communities often see little beyond temporary construction jobs. In Asebu, residents question whether the influx of diaspora investment has translated into better schools, clinics, or roads.

The Role of Chiefs and Intermediaries

Traditional leaders are central to both the promise and the peril of diaspora resettlement. Chiefs can be powerful facilitators, offering land and cultural legitimacy to returnees. But they can also be gatekeepers, controlling access and extracting rents.

Project intermediaries — often Ghanaian diaspora themselves — act as brokers, marketing land to foreign buyers and smoothing bureaucratic hurdles. In the Pan African Village case, some intermediaries are accused of prioritising sales over community relations, a charge they deny.

Civil Society Steps In

Local NGOs and advocacy groups have begun mediating between residents, chiefs, and returnees. Organisations like the Land Resource Management Centre have called for free, prior, and informed consent protocols in all diaspora land deals, echoing global best practice in indigenous and community land rights.

The Africa Report notes that the Lands Commission has promised an audit of allocations in Asebu, though no timeline has been set. Civil society actors warn that without structural reforms, similar disputes will erupt elsewhere as Beyond the Return expands.

The Human Cost

Beyond policy debates, the dispute has personal consequences. Farmers displaced from their plots face food insecurity and loss of income. Returnees who invested savings in building homes now worry about legal challenges. Trust between locals and newcomers — essential for integration — has frayed.

As one Asebu youth leader told New Lines: “We are not against our brothers and sisters coming home. But homecoming must not mean we lose our own home.”

The Road Ahead

Mediation efforts are under way, with some chiefs signalling willingness to revisit contested allocations. The Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture has floated the idea of a diaspora land bank — pre‑vetted parcels with clear titles — to reduce conflict risk.

For now, the Pan African Village stands as both a beacon and a warning: that the romance of return can sour when the ground beneath it is contested. The challenge for Ghana is to preserve the symbolic power of the Year of Return while ensuring that heritage tourism uplifts, rather than uproots, the communities that host it.

Stakeholders at a Glance

• Government of Ghana – Promotes Beyond the Return as a development strategy; responsible for tourism policy and diaspora engagement.
• Central Region Chiefs – Customary custodians of land; key decision‑makers in allocations.
• Lands Commission – Statutory body overseeing land registration and regulation.
• Diaspora Returnees – Beneficiaries of resettlement schemes; investors in housing and tourism.
• Project Intermediaries – Brokers connecting returnees with land opportunities.
• Asebu Residents – Local community members affected by land reallocations.
• Civil Society Groups – Advocates for transparency, consent, and equitable benefit‑sharing.