The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has raised concerns about the circumstances surrounding the establishment of Empire Cement Ghana Limited, warning that the company could be forced to relocate if it fails to resolve persistent dust pollution from its operations.
The Authority says the dispute between the cement manufacturer and residents in neighbouring communities has escalated into repeated complaints and legal battles, raising questions about the factory’s location and its impact on public health.
The EPA shut down the factory on September 14 following investigations into alleged air pollution and nuisance associated with its operations.
Speaking to Citi News, the EPA’s Deputy Chief Executive Officer in charge of Operations, Prof. Michael Ayamga-Adongo, said the Authority had previously advised the company to relocate but was now assessing assurances from management that technological upgrades could control dust emissions.
“They have engaged with us, and they have assured us that they can upgrade their technology to accommodate and reduce the dust that is coming from the production of cement,” he said.
Prof. Ayamga-Adongo stressed that the EPA’s decision to close the facility was informed by its responsibility to protect human life and public safety.
He warned, however, that the company’s proposed technological improvements would have to address the pollution concerns, as any failure could expose residents living nearby to further risks.
The EPA official acknowledged the prolonged tensions between the company and its neighbours, noting that the disagreements had resulted in legal action involving the company, residents and the Authority.
“We must admit that the inhabitants and the neighbours of Empire Cement have consistently been at loggerheads with the company, and they are taking everybody to court, even including us,” he said.
He also described the circumstances under which the factory was established as contentious and expressed concern that the investor might have been misled by parties that should have considered the interests of the surrounding communities.
“Much as we feel for the investor, we think that he was misled by some entities who should have known better and who should have acted on behalf of the people and not based on any interest that has brought us here,” he said.
According to Prof. Ayamga-Adongo, the EPA is now working to address the situation, although corrective action could have financial consequences for the investor.
The Authority’s position leaves the company facing a critical decision: demonstrate that its proposed technology can adequately control dust pollution or risk relocation.
While the EPA has acknowledged the investor’s concerns, it has maintained that public health and safety must take precedence over commercial interests where pollution poses a risk to nearby communities.
