A demolition exercise has begun at the La Pleasure Beach in Accra amid heavy security presence and a tense atmosphere as residents, workers and businesses try to salvage their belongings.

The ongoing demolition exercise is being carried out as a joint operation involving personnel from the 48 Engineer Regiment of the Ghana Armed Forces, alongside the Ghana Police Service.

According to a worker, the demolition exercise commenced in the early hours of the morning after security personnel arrived at the facility at about 4:00 a.m. and ordered residents and workers to vacate the premises.

Several structures at the La Pleasure Beach have since been completely pulled down, while others have been partially demolished.

Workers and residents have been seen moving through the affected areas, clearing rubble and debris from structures that have already been brought down and attempting to recover whatever belongings they can.

There is a significant security presence at the site, with soldiers and police personnel supervising the demolition. Security personnel have also been preventing residents and other people from returning to sections where the demolition has already taken place.

The security presence has helped keep the exercise under control, but the atmosphere at the scene remains tense.

Some residents and workers, particularly those who depend on the facility for their livelihoods, were seen crying.

One worker at the La Pleasure Beach who spoke to JoyNews' Ramat Bashiru said the demolition came unexpectedly.

According to him, security personnel arrived at around 4:00 a.m., and people were given only a short time to remove their belongings.

He said that within about 15 minutes of being instructed to leave, the demolition began.

He said they had been given a verbal notice about two weeks earlier, but they did not expect the demolition to happen so soon.

Demolition follows land dispute

The demolition comes after weeks of controversy over the future of the La Pleasure Beach.

Management of the facility had previously rejected a directive to vacate the premises, arguing that there was an ongoing court dispute concerning ownership of the land.