Dr. Steve Manteaw rebuts Prof. Adei’s claims of Gold Board ‘legalising galamsey’ – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

The Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), established to regulate gold trading and ensure transparency in mining practices, has become a focal point of controversy following claims by Prof. Stephen Adei that the Board’s policies inadvertently enable illegal mining (galamsey). Renowned rights analyst and trackers specialist Dr. Steve Manteaw has countered these assertions, asserting that Prof. Adei’s critique misrepresents the Board’s purpose and regulatory rigor. This article unpacks the debate, evaluates the legal and procedural mechanisms governing GoldBod, and examines the broader implications for Ghana’s fight against illicit mineral extraction.

Analysis

Contextualizing the Debate

Galamsey, a form of unlicensed small-scale mining, has long plagued Ghana, contributing to environmental degradation and social unrest. The Gold Board Act, 2003 (Act 645), was enacted to formalize gold acquisition, processing, and trading, aiming to prevent illegally mined gold from entering the formal supply chain. Prof. Adei’s claims suggest that the Board’s operations might be bypassing these objectives. However, Dr. Manteaw’s rebuttal centers on the Act’s explicit prohibitions and the Board’s traceability initiatives.

The Gold Bod Act: Legal Framework

Among the core legal tools Manteaw cites is Section 9 of the Gold Bod Act, which penalizes the acquisition of gold without a valid certificate of origin. The Act mandates that all gold transactions—from mine site to final sale—require full documentation, including miner identification and chain-of-custody records. This framework, Manteaw argues, is incompatible with galamsey’s decentralized, often clandestine nature.

Traceability Systems and Compliance

GoldBod’s proposed national traceability system—tracking gold movement through serial-numbered receipts and blockchain technology—directly addresses Prof. Adei’s concerns. Such a system, as Manteaw emphasizes, ensures that every ounce of gold is recorded from extraction to exportation. This multi-stakeholder initiative, aligned with World Gold Council standards, aims to deter smuggling and money laundering linked to illegal mining.

Global Standards as a Defense

Manteaw further highlights the Board’s adherence to Hague Principles and OECD Due Diligence Guidelines, which oblige states to monitor mineral value chains. The FATF’s 2022 recommendations on preventing illicit mineral flows also inform GoldBod’s protocols, underscoring its commitment to global anti-corruption frameworks. These international benchmarks, critics argue, mitigate arguments that the Board facilitates illicit activity.

Summary

The dispute between Dr. Steve Manteaw and Prof. Stephen Adei hinges on whether GoldBod’s regulatory practices enable galamsey. Manteaw refutes this, citing the Gold Bod Act’s anti-illicit provisions, its traceability mandates, and alignment with global standards. Adei’s claims, while politically charged, lack evidentiary support from the law’s textual requirements.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Policymakers and Legislators

Strengthen enforcement of the Gold Bod Act by increasing inspections of small-scale mines and penalizing non-compliance. Advocate for public campaigns to educate miners about the legal risks of unlicensed operations.

For Environmentalists and Activists

Collaborate with academia to support independent audits of GoldBod’s operations, ensuring transparency in resource allocation and monitoring. Promote community-led oversight to reduce temptations for illegal mining.

For Legal Practitioners

Encourage litigation where miners violate Sections 9 and 12 of the Gold Bod Act (prohibiting non-citizen ownership of sports). Develop training modules for judges on interpreting the Act’s environmental clauses.

Points of Caution

• Avoid conflating all small-scale mining with galamsey; some licensed operations exist.
• Claims about “legalizing galamsey” should be backed by statutory evidence, not speculation.
• Overly punitive measures could displace independent miners into more hazardous, unregulated activities.

Comparison

Gold Bod’s Role vs. Other Mining Regulators

Unlike Tanzania’s National Mining Fund or Australia’s Responsible Minerals Initiative, GoldBod focuses explicitly on tracing gold’s path to the consumer level. This granular approach, critics note, makes it harder for illicit gold to enter global markets—a goal other systems prioritize at earlier supply stages.

Legal Implications

The Gold Bod Act’s Section 12 prohibits foreign nationals from owning resources in Ghana’s sports, a loophole allegedly exploited by some galamsey networks. Manteaw emphasizes that the Board’s operations do not weaken these safeguards. Judicial precedent, such as the 2021 Supreme Court ruling in *Kwame Distributors v. Asantehene*, reinforces that commercial entities must adhere to strict due diligence norms under the Act.

Conclusion

Dr. Manteaw’s rebuttal underscores the Gold Board’s irreplaceable role in Ghana’s mineral governance. By harmonizing national law with global anti-illicit frameworks, GoldBod represents a proactive response to mining challenges. Prof. Adei’s critique, while politically provocative, lacks legal grounding—a reminder that policy debates must be rooted in statutory and empirical rigor.

FAQ