A Tax for Galamsey: How MMDCEs Became the Weakest Link in Ghana’s Anti-Illegal Mining Fight

Introduction: The Paradox of Local Enforcement

The persistent and devastating issue of illegal mining, locally known as galamsey, has long been a formidable challenge for Ghana, threatening its environment, water resources, and agricultural land. While national governments have launched numerous high-profile operations to combat this menace, a critical vulnerability has been identified at the grassroots level. According to Alexander Akwasi Acquah, the Deputy Ranking Member on Parliament’s Committee on Local Government and Rural Development and MP for Akim Oda, Metropolitan, Municipal and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs)—the chief administrative officers at the local government level—may be inadvertently or intentionally becoming the weakest link in the anti-galamsey struggle. His concerns, voiced on a national platform, point to a troubling pattern where enforcement is blurred with revenue generation, creating a systemic contradiction that undermines the national fight. This article delves into these allegations, examining the structural role of MMDCEs, the evidence of financial transactions that legitimize illicit activity, and the broader implications for Ghana’s environmental security and governance.

Key Points: Summary of the Core Arguments

• Alleged Complicity: MMDCEs, who chair District Security Councils, are accused of undermining anti-galamsey operations by authorizing or turning a blind eye to illegal mining in their jurisdictions.
• The “Fine” Mechanism: Evidence suggests some district assemblies issue official receipts to illegal miners, framing payments as “fines.” This practice, critics argue, effectively licenses illegal activity under the guise of revenue collection for the assembly.
• Contradiction with National Policy: This local-level revenue generation directly contradicts the national government’s declared zero-tolerance policy towards galamsey and its efforts to protect forest reserves and water bodies.
• Security Council Authority: Since most galamsey occurs in rural districts, MMDCEs hold pivotal authority as heads of local security councils. Police and military operations often require their sanction, meaning their inaction or complicity can halt enforcement before it starts.
• Budgetary Paradox: Despite significant budgetary allocations to district assemblies to support their operations—including anti-galamsey tasks—some continue to facilitate illegal mining, raising serious questions about political will and oversight.
• Erosion of Trust: The alleged actions of a few MMDCEs risk eroding public trust in local governance and creating a perception that the fight against galamsey is selectively enforced or hypocritical.

Background: Understanding Galamsey and Ghana’s Institutional Framework

The Galamsey Crisis: Scale and Impact

Galamsey, a portmanteau of “gather them and sell,” refers to the informal, often illegal, small-scale mining prevalent in Ghana. While some artisanal mining is legal and licensed, the galamsey phenomenon is characterized by operations without proper permits, often in protected areas like forest reserves and near major rivers (e.g., the Pra, Ankobra, and Birim). The environmental consequences are severe: massive deforestation, siltation of water bodies (impacting drinking water and fisheries), and land degradation due to the use of mercury and other toxic chemicals. The economic cost is also significant, with losses in formal mineral revenue, agricultural productivity, and tourism potential. Successive governments have deployed military task forces like “Operation Vanguard” and established regulatory bodies like the Minerals Commission and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to combat the practice, with varying degrees of success.

The Role of MMDCEs in Local Governance and Security

Ghana’s decentralized system of governance grants substantial authority to district assemblies, which are the primary planning and coordinating bodies at the local level. At the head of each Metropolitan, Municipal, or District Assembly is a Chief Executive (MMDCE), appointed by the President with the approval of the assembly. Crucially, the MMDCE also chairs the District Security Council (DISEC), a body that coordinates security agencies (police, military, immigration) operating within the district. This position makes the MMDCE a linchpin for any localized security or law enforcement operation, including those targeting illegal mining. Theoretically, this structure is designed to ensure that national security directives are effectively implemented at the grassroots, with local leaders providing necessary intelligence, logistical support, and political backing for operations.

Analysis: The Contradiction Between Revenue and Enforcement

The “Fine-Receipt” Paradox: Revenue Generation vs. Law Enforcement

The central allegation made by MP Akwasi Acquah is that some district assemblies are engaging in a practice that legally and logically contradicts the anti-galamsey mandate. He claims to possess a receipt issued by an assembly to an illegal miner, which explicitly labels the payment as a “fine for illegal mining.” This document, if authentic, represents a profound policy contradiction. Law enforcement agencies typically impose fines or penalties after a prosecution or as an administrative sanction for a violation. The act of issuing a receipt for a fine to an active illegal operator, without a corresponding legal process of arrest, prosecution, and conviction, transforms the penalty into a de facto licensing fee. It creates a perverse incentive: illegal miners can continue their operations by making periodic payments to the local assembly, which then records the transaction as revenue. This practice, as Acquah states, “blurs the line between enforcement and endorsement.”

Political and Financial Incentives at the District Level

Why would an MMDCE or an assembly engage in such a practice? Several interconnected factors are at play. First, district assemblies often face severe budgetary constraints and pressure to generate internally generated funds (IGF) to supplement central government transfers. Illegal mining, despite its destructiveness, is a highly lucrative activity in certain regions. The stream of cash from miners seeking operational “peace” can become a tempting source of IGF. Second, political considerations cannot be ignored. In areas where galamsey is a major employer and economic activity for a significant portion of the populace, MMDCEs may face intense pressure from local elites and constituents to allow the practice to continue. Cracking down could provoke social unrest or political backlash. Third, the alleged lack of consequences—as highlighted by the case where an MCE was called for interdiction but remained in office—may foster a culture of impunity. If the central government or oversight bodies fail to act decisively against complicit officials, the practice is likely to persist.

The Security Council Bottleneck

Acquah’s argument gains further weight when considering the procedural authority of the MMDCE as DISEC chair. He notes that security operations, especially those involving the military or police in a proactive, sustained manner, “must be by the sanction of the MCE.” This means that even if national command structures issue orders to flush out illegal miners from a specific district, the local MMDCE’s cooperation is operationally essential. They control the local security apparatus’s agenda, can delay or deny requests for support, and shape the intelligence that guides operations. An MMDCE who is financially or politically invested in the status quo of illegal mining can therefore act as a critical bottleneck, paralyzing enforcement from within. This structural reality makes the MMDCE not just an administrative officer but a key determinant of the anti-galamsey campaign’s local success or failure.

Legal and Ethical Implications

The practices described, if proven, carry significant legal and ethical ramifications under Ghanaian law. Issuing receipts for “fines” outside the due process of law could constitute:

• Abuse of Office/Misuse of Public Office: Using an official position to facilitate an illegal activity for financial gain.
• Corruption: Accepting or facilitating payments in exchange for non-enforcement of the law.
• Aiding and Abetting a Crime: Actively enabling the crime of illegal mining, which violates the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) and Environmental Protection Agency regulations.
• Financial Misconduct: Recording illicit payments as legitimate assembly revenue constitutes a falsification of public accounts.

Ethically, it represents a catastrophic breach of public trust. MMDCEs are fiduciary agents of the state and stewards of their district’s environment and development. Facilitating the very activity destroying that environment for short-term revenue is a profound betrayal of that stewardship. It also creates a two-tiered system of justice, where those who can pay operate with impunity, while poorer, compliant miners are marginalized.

Practical Advice: Paths to Strengthening the Anti-Galamsey Campaign

For National Government and Oversight Institutions

• Direct Audits and Investigations: The Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, the Auditor-General, and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) must conduct targeted, unannounced audits of revenue collection in high-galamsey districts. Scrutinize the nature and source of all IGF receipts, particularly those labeled as “fines” or “penalties” from mining-related entities.
• Clarify and Strengthen Regulations: Issue clear, unambiguous directives that prohibit district assemblies from accepting any payments from entities engaged in illegal mining. Any legitimate administrative fees must be tied to specific, lawful permits and processes that do not involve ongoing illegal activity.

Empower Whistleblowers: Establish a protected, anonymous channel for assembly staff, traditional authorities, and community members to report collusion between officials and illegal miners without fear of reprisal.

• Link Performance to Compliance: Make the suspension or withholding of central government grants and development funds contingent on verified reports of zero tolerance for galamsey from the district’s DISEC and assembly leadership.

For MMDCEs and District Assemblies

• Public Transparency: Publish all revenue collected by the assembly online and at public notice boards, with detailed descriptions. Any receipt from a mining-related entity must be publicly justifiable as a lawful fee for a specific, pre-existing permit.
• Proactive DISEC Leadership: MMDCEs must use their chairmanship of DISEC to proactively develop intelligence-led operation plans with security agencies, setting clear targets and timelines for flushing out illegal miners. They must publicly commit to refusing any form of payment or induce