A Tax For Galamsey? Security Operatives, Taskforces, and Ghana’s Illegal Mining Crisis

In the forested, gold-rich regions of Ghana, a contentious practice has come to light, blurring the lines between enforcement and exploitation. A investigative report, “A Tax for Galamsey: The Extortion Racket Fuelling Illegal Mining,” alleges that in the Amansie Central District of the Ashanti Region, illegal mining—locally termed galamsey—is not merely tolerated but systematically taxed. The Presiding Member of the District Assembly, Isaac Osei Duah, has responded, stating that security operatives are fully aware of and participate in this fee-collection system. This development raises profound questions about governance, the rule of law, and the complex battle against environmentally destructive illegal mining in Ghana. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of the situation, examining the claims, the official defense, the role of security agencies, and the path forward for sustainable resource management.

Key Points at a Glance

• Allegation: An investigative documentary claims the Amansie Central District Assembly and a security-linked taskforce authorize and collect “taxes” from illegal miners, effectively sanctioning the activity in exchange for fees.
• Official Response: Assembly leadership acknowledges fee collection but frames it as a reluctant, last-resort deterrent and revenue measure after traditional enforcement failed, insisting security agencies were integral partners.
• Security Involvement: The Presiding Member explicitly states that police and other security operatives are mindful of the fees, participate in taskforce meetings, and are not outsiders to the process.
• Core Conflict: The situation presents a stark paradox: state actors (district assembly and security) are simultaneously positioned as enforcers against and de facto regulators of illegal mining, creating a high-risk environment for corruption and environmental degradation.
• National Repercussions: The revelations have sparked public debate and calls for accountability, with the Minister of State for Government Communications pledging legal action against those found culpable.

Background: Understanding Galamsey and the Governance Challenge

The Scourge of Illegal Mining (Galamsey) in Ghana

Galamsey, a portmanteau of “gather” and “sell,” refers to small-scale, often informal and illegal gold mining operations prevalent across Ghana. While some artisanal mining is legal, galamsey typically operates without permits, outside regulatory frameworks, and with devastating consequences. The practice is a primary driver of severe environmental degradation in Ghana, including:

• Deforestation and destruction of agricultural land.
• Pollution of rivers and water bodies with toxic chemicals like mercury and cyanide, affecting drinking water and aquatic life.
• Land degradation and dangerous mining pits that cause fatalities.
• Social issues, including child labor and community displacement.

Successive Ghanaian governments have launched major military-led operations, such as Operation Vanguard, to combat galamsey, often with initial success followed by resurgence. This cycle points to deep-seated systemic and governance challenges at local and national levels.

The Role of District Assemblies in Local Governance

Ghana’s decentralized system grants District Assemblies significant authority over local administration, economic development, and security coordination. In theory, they are pivotal in implementing national mining and environmental policies on the ground. The Amansie Central District, located in the heart of the Ashanti Region’s gold belt, is particularly affected. The Assembly, led by a Presiding Member and a District Chief Executive (DCE), is responsible for local by-laws, revenue generation, and coordinating with security agencies to maintain law and order, including against illegal mining.

Analysis: Deconstructing the “Tax” Allegations and the Defense

The Investigative Narrative: A System of Extortion

The PleasureNews Hotline investigation, employing undercover reporting and secret recordings, presents a damning narrative. It alleges a structured system where:

1. Authorization: District officials and a taskforce operating under the DCE’s authority set fee structures for illegal miners.
2. Collection & Receipting: Payments are collected, and receipts are issued, formalizing the transaction.
3. Protection: The collected fees ostensibly buy protection from arrest or operation shutdowns, allowing galamsey to continue.

This framework, if true, transforms illegal mining from a clandestine crime into a de facto taxed, regulated enterprise at the district level. It suggests a profound failure of the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence and revenue collection, creating a shadow governance structure.

The Assembly’s Justification: Deterrence and Revenue in Desperation

Mr. Isaac Osei Duah does not deny the fee collection but offers a starkly different interpretation. His argument rests on two pillars:

• Failed Enforcement: He claims traditional enforcement—raids, seizures, and arrests—proved “futile” in sustainably stopping galamsey in the district. The miners, he suggests, would simply return after security forces left.
• Pragmatic Alternative: The fees were thus adopted as a “deterrent” (by imposing a cost) and a necessary source of revenue (“to put something into the Assembly’s coffers”) for district development. He frames it as a reluctant, pragmatic choice in a no-win scenario.

This defense introduces the complex concept of pragmatic governance in conflict zones, where authorities might engage with illicit actors to manage a problem they cannot fully solve. However, it directly conflicts with national policy and legal statutes that criminalize illegal mining and any form of complicity.

The Pivotal Role of Security Operatives

The most explosive element of Mr. Osei Duah’s statement is his confirmation that security operatives are mindful and part of the taskforce. He states unequivocally: “They have always been part of our meetings… We even have a taskforce that they are part of, and they are aware of the fees.” This directly contradicts the notion that security agencies are separate, impartial enforcers being undermined by corrupt local politicians. Instead, it suggests a coordinated, inter-agency approach where the police and others are active participants in the fee-collection scheme. This integration is critical; it moves the issue from potential local government corruption to a potential security sector governance failure, where the very agencies mandated to uphold the law are implicated in circumventing it.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The alleged practices, if proven, raise serious legal questions under Ghanaian law:

• Criminal Complicity: Public officials, including Assembly members and security personnel, could be liable for aiding and abetting a crime (illegal mining) and for corruption-related offenses under the Criminal Offences Act and the Public Procurement Act.
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty: District Assemblies have a fiduciary duty to manage public resources and uphold the law. Authorizing fees from illegal activities likely violates this duty and could constitute misuse of public office.
• Environmental Law Violations: By enabling activities that cause environmental damage, officials may be in breach of Ghana’s Environmental Protection Agency Act and mining regulations.
• Security Act Violations: Security personnel involved could face charges under the Police Service Act or other security regulations for misconduct and bringing disrepute to the service.

The Minister’s pledge that culprits will face the “full rigours of the law” signals that the national government views these allegations as potential serious crimes, not merely administrative mismanagement.

Practical Advice: Pathways to Resolution and Accountability

For Policymakers and District Assemblies

• Immediate Suspension and Independent Audit: The implicated taskforce should be suspended pending an independent, forensic audit of its finances and operations, led by a body like the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) or the Auditor-General.
• Clarify and Reinforce Mandates: The Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development must issue a unequivocal directive reaffirming that no district assembly has the authority to “tax” or regularize illegal activities. Clear protocols for engagement with security agencies must be established.
• Community-Led Monitoring: Establish transparent community watchdog committees with civil society and traditional leader representation to monitor mining areas and Assembly activities, with protected channels for whistleblowing.

For Security Agencies (Police, Military, etc.)

• Internal Investigations: The Ghana Police Service and other involved agencies must launch swift, transparent internal investigations to identify and discipline any personnel named in the scheme, regardless of rank.
• Chain of Command Clarity: Security operatives on such taskforces must have clear, written orders from national or regional command, not local political figures. Their operational independence must be protected.
• Ethics and Integrity Training: Reinforce training on the legal boundaries of engagement with local authorities and communities in anti-galamsey operations.

For Civil Society and the Media

• Sustained Investigative Journalism: Continue digging into the financial flows, identifying the ultimate beneficiaries of the “taxes,” and documenting the environmental and social impacts in Amansie Central and other districts.
• Public Education: Campaigns to educate citizens on the true costs of galamsey (health, environment, long-term economic loss) versus the short-term, illicit gains from the “tax” system.
• Strategic Litigation: Support affected communities or NGOs in filing lawsuits against the Assembly and security agencies for dereliction of duty and environmental harm, using the investigation as evidence.

For National Government

• Review Decentralization in High-Risk Sectors: Assess whether the current level of autonomy in resource-rich districts requires oversight mechanisms specifically for mining regulation to prevent local capture.
• Invest in Alternative Livelihoods: Drastically scale up funded programs for alternative livelihoods (agro-processing, sustainable forestry, formalized small-scale mining) in galamsey-prone regions to reduce economic dependency on illegal mining.
• Strengthen Multi-Agency Coordination: Create a permanent, inter-ministerial taskforce with a clear mandate, adequate resources, and a transparent reporting structure to oversee the fight against galamsey, reducing the scope for localized, rogue operations.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What exactly is “galamsey”?

Galamsey is the local Ghanaian term for illegal, informal small-scale gold mining. It is characterized by the absence of legal permits, use of crude methods (like mercury for gold extraction), and significant environmental damage, particularly to land and water resources.

Is it legal for a District Assembly to tax illegal activities?

No. Under Ghanaian law, District Assemblies have the power to levy certain local taxes and fees (e.g., business operating permits, property rates), but these are for legal economic activities within their jurisdiction. Authorizing payments for an explicitly illegal activity like unlicensed mining is not a legitimate tax. It constitutes complicity in a crime and misuse of office.

What role should security operatives play in fighting galamsey?

Security agencies (police, military) are tasked with enforcing mining and environmental laws. Their role is to conduct raids, arrest offenders, secure seized equipment, and support regulatory agencies like the Minerals Commission and EPA. They should not be involved in setting fee structures, collecting payments, or making deals with illegal operators. Their operational commands should come from national or regional security headquarters, not local political assemblies.

What are the potential consequences if these allegations are true?

Consequences would be severe: criminal prosecution of implicated officials and security personnel; dissolution or restructuring of the district taskforce; potential suspension of the District Chief Executive and Pres