Andrews Bediako Calls for Broader Investigation into Galamsey Extortion, Including Technocrats

Introduction

A groundbreaking investigative documentary has exposed a sophisticated extortion racket operating within Ghana’s illegal mining sector, locally known as galamsey. In response, Andrews Bediako, a former Administrator of the National Association of Local Authorities of Ghana (NALAG), has issued a pivotal call to action. He argues that the ensuing public and institutional dialogue on accountability must not narrowly focus on political appointees like District Chief Executives (DCEs) and Municipal Chief Executives (MCEs). Instead, Bediako insists that any credible probe must systematically incorporate the technocrats—the professional civil servants within district assemblies—who are legally responsible for revenue mobilization and financial oversight. This stance challenges conventional narratives of blame in public sector corruption and emphasizes a strict, legalistic interpretation of Ghana’s Local Governance Act, Act 936. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of Bediako’s position, the context of the galamsey crisis, the legal framework governing local government revenue, and the practical steps needed for genuine accountability and reform.

Key Points

Background: The Galamsey Crisis and the “A Tax for Galamsey” Exposé

The Scale and Impact of Illegal Mining

Galamsey, a portmanteau of “gather” and “sell,” refers to the pervasive practice of small-scale, often unlicensed gold mining in Ghana. While providing livelihoods for some, it has triggered a severe environmental and governance crisis. The activity causes massive deforestation, river pollution with mercury and cyanide, and degradation of agricultural land. The economic loss through unregulated exports and environmental cleanup costs runs into billions of Ghanaian cedis annually. The crisis has been a top national security and development concern for over a decade, with successive governments launching military-style operations (Operation Vanguard, etc.) to combat it, often with limited long-term success.

The PleasureNews Hotline Investigation

The PleasureNews Hotline investigative documentary, “A Tax for Galamsey: The extortion racket fuelling illegal mining,” shifts the narrative from mere lawlessness to state-embedded corruption. Focusing on the Amansie Central District in the Ashanti Region, the investigation used undercover reporting, secret recordings, and documentary evidence to reveal that illegal mining is not a clandestine activity but a formally taxed, receipted, and protected enterprise. The alleged extortion network reportedly involves officials at the District Assembly and a task force operating under the authority of the District Chief Executive. This transforms galamsey from a regulatory failure into a case of institutionalized, revenue-generating corruption at the local government level.

Analysis: Deconstructing Andrews Bediako’s Argument for Broader Accountability

Bediako’s intervention, made during an interview on The Pulse on PleasureNews, provides a crucial legal and administrative lens through which to view the scandal. His analysis dismantles the simplistic “politician-blame” narrative and reconstructs the accountability chain as prescribed by Ghanaian law.

The Legal Architecture: Local Governance Act, Act 936

Bediako anchors his entire argument in the Local Governance Act, Act 936 of 2016. This Act is the cornerstone of Ghana’s decentralized system, defining the structure, functions, and finances of Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs). Bediako states unequivocally: “Act 936 prescribes the sources of revenue to district assemblies. The department responsible for revenue mobilisation is the finance office.” This is not a matter of opinion but a statutory directive. The Act vests the authority for revenue collection in the professional financial management cadre of the assembly, not in the political head (DCE/MCE) acting alone.

The Technocrats: Roles of the Finance Officer and Coordinating Director

Bediako identifies two critical technocrat positions:

• Finance Officer: The head of the finance department, legally mandated to manage all revenue mobilization, accounting, and financial reporting for the assembly. This officer and their team are the ones who physically “take some of this money from the people.”
• Coordinating Director: The chief administrative officer of the assembly and the principal adviser to the DCE/MCE. Bediako describes this role as pivotal: “The coordinating director is the chief adviser to the DCE or the MCE. The technocrats are always at the assembly. They are supposed to know better than the politician, and that is why they advise.”

According to Bediako, these officers are not mere implementers but guardians of legality. Their advisory function is a legal and professional bulwark against the misuse of assembly authority. If a DCE decides to levy an unlawful fee on galamsey operators, the technocrats have a duty to advise against it. Their silence or complicity, therefore, becomes an integral part of the corrupt act.

Political vs. Technical Decision-Making: A Critical Distinction

Bediako makes a nuanced distinction. He acknowledges that some decisions are inherently political, but he draws a clear line when it comes to the legality of revenue sources: “‘This money we are not supposed to take,’ they will advise you as a DCE.” His hypothetical is telling: if technocrats advise against an unlawful levy and the DCE proceeds anyway, the politician bears sole culpability. However, the current situation, as revealed by the documentary, suggests a different scenario. The absence of evidence that technocrats opposed the extortion implies either they did not advise against it, or their advice was ignored and they failed to escalate the matter per their statutory duties—both of which constitute professional misconduct.

systemic Complicity vs. Individual Scapegoating

The core of Bediako’s plea is against the ritualistic firing of a single DCE as a performative act of accountability. He asks: “If we are looking at the DCE being fired, what about the finance officer? What about the coordinating director?” This highlights a systemic flaw. Removing a political appointee may change the face of leadership but leaves the bureaucratic machinery—the very engine of the extortion racket according to the documentary—untouched. The same finance officers and coordinating directors remain in post, potentially enabling the same practices under a new political boss. True reform requires dismantling this entire chain of command and incentive structure within the assembly.

Practical Advice: Pathways to Genuine Accountability and Reform

Translating Bediako’s diagnosis into action requires multi-stakeholder effort.

For Investigating and Prosecutorial Agencies

• Expand the Scope of Probes: Any investigation into assembly-level corruption, including galamsey extortion, must automatically include interviews and forensic audits of the Finance Officer, Coordinating Director, and relevant revenue collection staff. Their communications, advice memos, and financial records must be scrutinized.
• Apply Act 936 and Related Laws: Prosecutions should be based on specific violations of Act 936, the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921), and the Criminal Offences Act. Charges could include stealing, causing financial loss to the state, and abuse of office.
• Protect Whistleblowers: Establish secure channels for technocrats and lower-level staff to report illegal directives without fear of victimization, as they are often the first to witness malfeasance.

For the Central Government and Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development

• Mandate Regular Audits: Commission special, unannounced audits of revenue collection in high-galamsey districts, focusing on the legality and documentation of all levies.
• Reinforce Administrative Sanctions: Empower the Local Government Service to swiftly suspend or dismiss technocrats found complicit in or negligent towards illegal revenue practices, using existing disciplinary codes.
• Clarify Revenue Codes: Issue a definitive, public directive to all MMDAs clarifying exactly what fees, if any, can be levied on mining activities (licensed or otherwise). Ambiguity is a tool for extortion.

For Civil Society and the Media

• Monitor the Bureaucracy: Shift some investigative focus from the easily identifiable political appointees to the permanent, less-visible technocratic staff. Analyze assembly budget statements and revenue reports for anomalies.
• Public Education: Educate citizens on the legitimate revenue sources of their district assemblies per Act 936. An informed public is better equipped to identify and report illegal levies.
• Advocate for Transparency: Push for the online publication of detailed assembly revenue collection data, broken down by source, to enable public tracking.

For District Assemblies Themselves

• Internal Ethics Training: Conduct mandatory training for all finance and administrative staff on the provisions of Act 936 and the ethical boundaries of revenue collection.
• Establish Independent Revenue Committees: Create internal committees with external civil society representation to review and approve all proposed new levies or fees.
• Document All Advice: Technocrats must formally document, in writing, any advice given to the DCE/MCE regarding the legality of proposed revenue measures, creating an auditable trail.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions on Galamsey Extortion and Accountability

What exactly is “galamsey extortion” as exposed by the documentary?

It refers to a system where officials at a district assembly, often through a designated task force, systematically demand and receive payments from illegal miners. These payments are framed as “taxes,” “fees,” or “permits” for operating, but are not authorized by law. The documentary showed receipts being issued, indicating a formalized, state-sanctioned racket that protects illegal operations in exchange for money, directly fueling the environmental destruction of galamsey.

Why is Andrews Bediako focusing on technocrats and not just politicians?

Bediako is emphasizing the legal reality of Ghana’s Local Governance Act (Act 936). The Act places responsibility for revenue mobilization squarely on the Finance Office (technocrats). The Coordinating Director is the chief adviser. While the DCE/MCE provides political leadership and ultimate approval, the technocrats have a statutory duty to ensure compliance with the law. Ignoring their role creates a gaping loophole where professional bureaucrats can evade responsibility for enabling illegal acts, either through active participation or negligent silence.

Is collecting any money from illegal miners automatically illegal?

Not necessarily. The key legal question is whether the specific levy or fee has a basis in the Local Governance Act, 1993 (Act 462) and subsequent regulations, or other relevant national laws. Assemblies have powers to levy certain fees for services (e.g., business operating permits, sanitation). However, there is no legal authority for an assembly to levy a general “tax” on the act of illegal mining itself. Bediako’s point is: “The issue is whether the particular money being taken is lawful. That is where the problem is.” The extortion involves inventing unlawful charges.

What legal penalties can technocrats face if found complicit?

If a Finance Officer or Coordinating Director is found to have willfully participated in or facilitated the collection of unlawful fees, they could face:

• Criminal Prosecution: Charges under the Criminal Offences Act for stealing, conspiracy to commit a crime, or abuse of office.</