A Tax for Galamsey: Why Public Anger Isn’t Enough to Stop Illegal Mining in Ghana

The devastating environmental and social crisis of illegal small-scale mining, widely known as galamsey, in Ghana has reached a critical juncture. While public outrage and media exposés grow, Ken Ashigbey, Convenor of the Media Coalition Against Illegal Mining, argues that anger is not a strategy. His central thesis, framed by the provocative concept of a “galamsey tax,” reveals a systemic collapse where local government officials allegedly facilitate the destruction. This article dissects the structural failures behind Ghana’s illegal mining epidemic, analyzes the allegations of official complicity, and outlines the concrete, multi-stakeholder actions required to move from outrage to effective enforcement and environmental restoration.

Introduction: The Galamsey Crisis and the “Tax” Metaphor

Ghana’s lush landscapes, vital waterways, and agricultural heartlands are under siege. The practice of galamsey—often involving dredging rivers, clearing forests with heavy machinery, and using toxic chemicals like mercury—has led to what experts describe as environmental ecocide. The visible scars include vast tracts of deforested land, polluted water bodies like the Pra and Ankobrah rivers, and compromised public health. In response, the government has launched numerous task forces and issued bans, yet the destruction persists, often with alarming efficiency.

It was against this backdrop that Ken Ashigbey, a respected engineer and media advocate, delivered a stark assessment during a PleasureNews National Dialogue. The dialogue followed a documentary revealing that some district assemblies in mining areas were collecting fees from operators of banned mining equipment. This, Ashigbey posited, had evolved into a de facto “galamsey tax“—a corrupt system where local authorities monetize the very illegality they are mandated to prevent. His warning was clear: Ghana’s response is too weak, too slow, and undermined from within. The core problem, he contended, is not a lack of awareness but a lack of decisive, uncompromising action across all levels of governance.

Key Points: Unpacking Ashigbey’s Argument

Ashigbey’s intervention provides a crucial framework for understanding the galamsey stalemate. The key takeaways from his analysis are:

The “Galamsey Tax” as a Symptom of Systemic Failure

The revelation that district assemblies collect charges from illegal miners is not merely a minor administrative error. It is, in Ashigbey’s view, evidence of a perverse incentive structure. When local government entities—the Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs) and their assemblies—derive revenue from illegal operations, their mandate to enforce the law is fundamentally corrupted. This transforms them from enforcers into de facto business partners in environmental crime.

The Illusion of “Tracking” Excavators

Government assurances that all excavators used in mining are being tracked ring hollow when these same machines are seen operating in protected zones. Ashigbey’s rhetorical question—”before anybody uses an excavator… do we need any other thing?”—highlights a critical gap between policy on paper and operational reality. If tracking systems are ineffective or circumvented, they serve only as a public relations shield, not an enforcement tool.

Public Outrage Must Translate to Political Pressure

While communities affected by galamsey express anger, Ashigbey argues this has not reached the threshold required to force systemic change. “We are not angry enough about this ecocide,” he stated. This anger must be channeled into sustained pressure on political representatives, from local assembly members to the presidency, demanding accountability and the removal of complicit officials.

Constitutional and Legal Boundaries Are Being Violated

Ashigbey cited specific, grave allegations: an MCE issuing a prospecting licence—a power constitutionally reserved for the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources—and another distributing “stickers” that allegedly permit mining operations. These acts, if true, represent direct violations of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) and its amendment, Act 995, which designates certain equipment as prohibited for mining and outlines severe penalties. They point to a breakdown of legal and constitutional order at the district level.

Background: The Anatomy of Ghana’s Galamsey Challenge

To understand the urgency, one must contextualize the galamsey phenomenon. It is not merely a law-and-order issue but a complex socio-economic and environmental crisis.

Historical and Economic Drivers

Galamsey has existed for decades, often as a subsistence activity. However, its current scale is driven by high global prices for gold and, to a lesser extent, other minerals. It provides livelihoods for thousands, including youth and the unemployed, in regions where formal economic opportunities are scarce. This economic desperation creates a pool of willing participants and a shield of community protection for operators, complicating enforcement.

Environmental and Health Catastrophe

The methods employed are notoriously destructive. “One leg” (improvised excavators) and “changfans” (motorized floating platforms) operate without environmental safeguards. The use of mercury to amalgamate gold leads to long-term water pollution, entering the food chain through fish. Deforestation leads to soil erosion and loss of biodiversity. The pollution of major river systems threatens water supply for millions and agricultural irrigation, posing a national security risk.

The Institutional Framework and Its Fractures

Ghana’s mining governance is multi-layered. The Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, through the Minerals Commission, is the primary regulator. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees environmental compliance. At the sub-national level, District Assemblies have crucial roles in land use planning and local security oversight, often working with the police and military task forces like Operation Vanguard. The alleged “galamsey tax” exposes a fatal flaw: the entities tasked with local enforcement are, in some cases, financially invested in the illegality they are meant to stop.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Failures

Ashigbey’s critique moves beyond surface-level blame to identify interconnected points of failure.

The Corruption of Local Governance: From DCE to Coordinating Director

The MMDCE is the president’s representative at the district level, holding significant executive power. Ashigbey’s assertion—”Any DCE that has galamsey taking place in his community, it’s either he’s getting it done or he’s incompetent”—frames the issue starkly. Complicity can take many forms: direct financial benefit from the “tax,” political kickbacks, or turning a blind eye due to fear or community pressure. His call for scrutiny extends to Coordinating Directors (the chief administrative officers of districts) and finance officers, recognizing that the machinery of corruption requires multiple actors. This implicates the entire local government administrative apparatus, not just the political appointee.

Erosion of the Rule of Law and Constitutional Supremacy

The specific allegation of an MCE issuing a prospecting licence is a profound constitutional breach. It bypasses the Minister, sidesteps the Minerals Commission’s technical evaluation, and mocks the legal framework designed to manage mineral resources transparently. If true, this is not administrative oversight but a willful act of usurpation. It signals that in some districts, official permits are merely commodities to be sold, rendering the entire licensing regime meaningless and emboldening illegal operators who can claim they “bought” permission.

The Gap Between National Policy and District Implementation

Presidential directives and task force deployments from Accra often falter at the district level. Ashigbey notes that while Regional Coordinating Councils may show some effort, the scale of destruction requires a different “business owner”—a metaphor for a wholly committed, uncompromising, and empowered operational entity. The current model appears to treat galamsey as a manageable nuisance rather than an existential threat to national assets, leading to half-measures, temporary disruptions, and a rapid return to business as usual once media spotlight fades.

The “War” Analogy: Inadequate Response to an Existential Threat

Ashigbey’s statement, “When you are in a situation of war, you don’t treat these things the way we’re treating them,” is pivotal. It suggests that the state’s response lacks the urgency, resources, and unified command of a wartime footing. The analogy implies that piecemeal operations, political compromises, and bureaucratic delays are strategies for losing a war. A “war” footing would involve: freezing all land titles in affected zones, deploying sustained, intelligence-led operations, prosecuting offenders in specialized fast-track courts, and implementing immediate ecological restoration orders funded by confiscated assets.

Practical Advice: A Multi-Pronged Path to Action

Moving from analysis to solution requires coordinated action from diverse stakeholders. Ashigbey’s appeal is a starting point for a broader blueprint.

For the Presidency and National Government

• Empower a Special Prosecutor or Task Force: Establish a dedicated, well-resourced unit with prosecutorial and investigative powers specifically for galamsey, insulated from local political interference. This unit should have the authority to audit all district assembly revenues and licences related to mining.
• Audit and Nullify All Suspicious Permits: Immediately order a forensic audit of all mining-related permits, licences, and “stickers” issued at the district level in the last five years. Suspend all such documents pending verification by the central Minerals Commission and Ministry.
• Asset Forfeiture and Restoration Fund: Activate the full provisions of Act 995 regarding forfeiture of equipment (excavators, changfans, processing plants) and proceeds of crime. Create a transparent “Galamsey Restoration Fund” fed by these forfeited assets to finance land rehabilitation and water purification.
• Whistleblower Protection and Reward: Institute a robust, anonymous whistleblower program with legal protection and financial rewards for information leading to the conviction of high-level facilitators, including public officials.

For the Media and Civil Society

• Intensify Investigative Journalism: As Ashigbey urged, “unleash the power of our investigative work into every district.” Media must move beyond reporting seizures to investigating the financial trails, political connections, and assembly revenues linked to galamsey. Data journalism can map the “galamsey tax” network.
• Public Scorecards and Naming: Civil society organizations (CSOs) should develop and publish real-time “Galamsey Accountability Scorecards” for each district, rating the performance and integrity of the DCE, Coordinating Director, and Assembly. Publicly name and shame complicit officials.
• Community Monitoring: Support affected communities with tools (mobile apps, hotlines) to safely document and report illegal operations and official collusion, creating a vast, grassroots intelligence network.

For Traditional Authorities and Community Leaders

• Assert Stool Land Sovereignty: Traditional rulers, as custodians of customary lands, must unequivocally revoke any informal agreements or tacit permissions given to illegal miners. They can lead community boycotts of galamsey-bought goods and services.
• Community Patrols and Intelligence: Organize community watch groups, with police support, to monitor entry points to forest reserves and riverbanks. Provide intelligence on the movement of equipment and key facilitators.
• Economic Alternatives: Advocate aggressively for and facilitate government and NGO programs providing viable alternative livelihoods (sustainable agroforestry, aquaculture, formal small-scale mining with proper concessions) to draw people away from galamsey.

For the Judiciary and Legal Framework

• Specialized Courts: Establish special environmental courts or fast-track divisions in high-impact districts to try galamsey cases, ensuring swift justice. Delayed trials are a victory for defendants.
• Strict Application of Act 995: Prosecutors must pursue the full weight of the law, including charges for “economic and environmental criminals” and those “facilitating or abetting” the crime, as Ashigbey cited. This targets the financiers and officials, not just the diggers.
• Judicial Activism: The judiciary can issue landmark rulings that set precedents for massive fines, mandatory restitution, and lifetime bans from public office for convicted officials.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions on Galamsey and Enforcement

What exactly is the “galamsey tax” Ashigbey refers to?

It is the alleged practice by some district assemblies and their officials (MMDCEs, Coordinating Directors) of collecting regular fees, permits, or “sticker” payments from operators of illegal mining equipment and activities. This creates a direct financial incentive for local government to sustain and profit from the illegal operations they are legally bound to shut down, effectively institutionalizing corruption at the local governance level.

Is it true that MMDCEs can issue mining licences?

No, it is not. Under Ghana’s Constitution and the Minerals and Mining Act, the power to issue prospecting licences and mineral rights rests solely with the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources on the advice of the Minerals Commission. Any such document issued by an MMDCE, Municipal Chief Executive (MCE), or District Chief Executive (DCE) is null and void and constitutes a serious breach of law and protocol. Ashigbey’s allegation points to a direct subversion of this constitutional and legal process.

What specific laws prohibit the equipment used in galamsey?

The primary legislation is the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) and its amendment, Act 995 of 2015. These acts explicitly prohibit the use of certain equipment for mining in unauthorized areas. Specifically, the use of “one leg” (improvised excavators) and “changfans” (floating platforms) for alluvial mining in rivers and streams is banned nationwide. Operating with such equipment without a valid, specific concession is a criminal offense punishable by severe penalties, including equipment seizure and imprisonment.

What penalties do illegal miners and their facilitators face under current Ghanaian law?

Under Act 995, penalties are significant. For first-time offenders using prohibited equipment or mining without a licence, penalties can include fines up to 2,500 penalty units (approximately GHS 30,000 as of 2023 rates) or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. For subsequent offenses, fines can double, and imprisonment can extend to 10 years. Crucially, the law also provides for the forfeiture of all mining equipment, machinery, and the mineral product itself. For public officials found guilty of “aiding and abetting” or issuing fraudulent documents, the penalties include dismissal from public office, forfeiture of benefits, and potential criminal prosecution.

Can ordinary citizens do anything besides be angry?

<p