A Tax for Galamsey: We’ve Gotten to Some Degree the Place Brute Force Will Have to Be Carried Out – Elikem Kotoko

The escalating crisis of illegal mining in Ghana, locally known as galamsey, has reached a critical juncture. With forests and water bodies devastated, a senior government official has suggested that conventional methods may be insufficient. Elikem Kotoko, Deputy Chief Executive of the Forestry Commission and spokesperson for the National Anti-Illegal Mining Operations Secretariat (NAIMOS), has stated that Ghana may have reached a point where the application of brute force is necessary as a major deterrent. This provocative statement follows revelations of a systematic “galamsey tax” scheme, where some local authorities levy fees on banned mining equipment. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-friendly, and pedagogical examination of this complex issue, exploring its historical roots, legal implications, and potential pathways forward.

Introduction: The Galamsey Crisis and a Controversial Proposal

Ghana’s battle against illegal small-scale mining is not new, but its intensity and the resulting environmental destruction have reached unprecedented levels. The term galamsey is a portmanteau of “gather” and “sell,” reflecting its informal, often unregulated nature. What began as a subsistence activity for rural communities has morphed into a lucrative, destructive enterprise often backed by powerful financiers. The visible scars—silted rivers, vast tracts of deforested land, and abandoned pits—are a national emergency. In this charged atmosphere, Elikem Kotoko’s comment that brute force may be required has ignited fierce public debate. It raises fundamental questions about the state’s monopoly on force, the rule of law, and the desperation of a government struggling to protect its natural heritage. This introduction sets the stage for a structured analysis of the problem, the proposed solutions, and their far-reaching consequences for environmental governance in Ghana.

Key Points: Deconstructing the “Galamsey Tax” and the Call for Force

Based on the central statements and the documented “galamsey tax” scandal, the following key points emerge:

The “Galamsey Tax” System: Investigations have uncovered that certain district assemblies in mining communities are systematically collecting fees from operators of machinery (like excavators and washing plants) that are legally banned for use in illegal mining. This transforms a criminal act into a de facto, locally tolerated revenue stream, creating a profound conflict of interest for local governance.
Admission of Strategic Failure: Kotoko’s suggestion that brute force is now on the table is a stark admission that decades of awareness campaigns, task forces (like Operation Vanguard), and intermittent crackdowns have failed to achieve lasting deterrence. It signals a shift from persuasion to coercion in official thinking.
Multi-Pronged Approach Required: Despite the focus on force, Kotoko emphasized that the solution is not singular. He explicitly highlighted the critical roles of the judiciary (for swift and certain punishment) and sustained land reclamation efforts.
Judicial Efficiency as a Pillar: The call for extended court hours and the adoption of technology in judicial processes underscores a recognized bottleneck: cases drag on for years, undermining the deterrent effect of arrests. The link between effective prosecution and prevention is clear.
Message of Zero Impunity: The core message is that no individual or entity, regardless of political or economic power, should be above the law. The perception of selective enforcement has severely weakened the state’s authority.

Background: The History and Drivers of Galamsey in Ghana

Historical Context: From Artisanal to Industrial-Scale Illegality

Small-scale mining has been a legal and regulated activity in Ghana since the Small-Scale Mining Law (PNDCL 218) of 1989. It was intended to provide livelihoods for Ghanaians, particularly in rural areas. However, the liberalization of the sector, coupled with a surge in global commodity prices (especially for gold), attracted massive foreign investment—often illegal—from Chinese nationals and others. This influx, starting in the mid-2000s, brought heavy machinery, changed the scale of operations, and dramatically increased environmental damage. The 2017 ban on all small-scale mining for several months and the launch of Operation Vanguard (a military-police task force) were major state responses, but their effects were often temporary.

The “Galamsey Tax”: A Symptom of Systemic Corruption

The recent documentary exposing the “galamsey tax” is not an isolated scandal but a symptom of a deeper malady. It illustrates how local government structures, tasked with enforcement, can become complicit. District Assemblies, which rely on internally generated funds, face budget constraints. The temptation to tax an illegal but thriving activity becomes a corrupt but pragmatic choice. This creates a perverse incentive structure: the local authority’s revenue is tied to the continuation of the very crime it is supposed to suppress. This taxation of illegality erodes the moral and legal high ground of the state and provides a financial buffer for galamsey operators against occasional national crackdowns.

Analysis: Weighing the Proposals and Their Implications

The Case for and Against “Brute Force”

The proposal to use brute force—interpreted as proactive, robust, and potentially physical interdiction—must be analyzed with extreme caution.

Proponents’ Argument: When faced with an existential threat to national resources (water, forests, agricultural land), the state has a duty to use all necessary means. The argument posits that galamsey operators, often armed and backed by powerful sponsors, only understand the language of force. A show of overwhelming, consistent force could break their economic model and create the necessary “shock” to halt operations. Proponents might cite the temporary success of Operation Vanguard’s aggressive patrols in specific areas.
Critics’ and Legal Concerns: The use of “brute force” by state actors is fraught with danger. It risks:
- Human Rights Violations: Excessive force, destruction of property without due process, and violence against miners (many of whom are impoverished locals) are serious concerns under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution and international covenants.
- Rule of Law Erosion: It substitutes extra-legal violence for legal process. The state’s legitimacy comes from its adherence to law, not its capacity for violence. Resorting to brute force can make the state indistinguishable from the lawless actors it opposes.
- Ineffectiveness and Backlash: Force without intelligence, sustained presence, and follow-up prosecution merely displaces operations. It can also trigger public sympathy for miners and anti-government sentiment in affected communities.

Legal Implication: Any use of force must be strictly governed by the Constitution (Article 13), the Police Service Act, and principles of proportionality and necessity. “Brute force” as a policy is legally nebulous and dangerous. What is legally defensible is proactive, intelligence-led, and lawful enforcement by security agencies acting within their mandate, supported by an efficient judicial system.

The Indispensable Role of the Judiciary and Technology

Kotoko’s concurrent emphasis on the judiciary is the most legally sound and potentially effective part of his statement. Deterrence is a function of three elements: certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment. Currently, the certainty is low (few prosecutions), the swiftness is abysmal (cases take years), and severity is inconsistent. The proposed solutions—extended court hours and technological adoption (e.g., virtual hearings, digital case management)—directly address the bottlenecks of judicial delay in Ghana. Faster trials for seized equipment, confiscated assets, and charged individuals would break the cycle of impunity. Technology could also aid in evidence presentation for complex environmental crimes.

Economic Drivers and the Need for Alternative Livelihoods

No enforcement strategy will succeed without addressing the root economic drivers. Galamsey persists because:

It offers immediate, high cash returns in areas with limited formal employment.
It is driven by powerful “chop-chop” (profit-sharing) networks involving local chiefs, politicians, security personnel, and foreign financiers.
Regulatory frameworks for legal small-scale mining are perceived as cumbersome, expensive, and corrupt, pushing miners into illegality.

A sustainable solution requires parallel development of viable alternative livelihoods (agro-processing, eco-tourism, sustainable forestry) and a radical simplification and decriminalization of the legal small-scale mining licensing process, coupled with strict enforcement only against those operating outside the law.

Practical Advice: A Multi-Stakeholder Roadmap

Moving beyond the polarized “force vs. dialogue” debate, a practical, legally-grounded, and effective strategy requires coordinated action:

For Government and Security Agencies:

Reframe “Brute Force” as “Robust, Lawful Enforcement”: Define clear, constitutional rules of engagement for security agencies. Focus on disrupting supply chains (fuel, mercury, machinery), seizing and permanently forfeiting assets, and making arrests based on solid intelligence. All actions must be documented for prosecution.
Establish Specialized Environmental Courts: Fast-track the creation of dedicated courts with extended hours and specialized judges/prosecutors to handle galamsey and related environmental crime cases.
Deploy Integrated Monitoring Technology: Use satellite imagery, drones, and GIS mapping (as piloted by the Minerals Commission) to monitor hotspots in real-time. This provides objective evidence and directs ground forces efficiently.
Root Out the “Galamsey Tax”: Launch a forensic audit of all district assemblies in mining regions. Prosecute officials found soliciting or accepting such payments. Redirect saved funds to community development projects.

For the Judiciary:

Implement the Extended Hours Model Reliably: Make after-hours sittings a standard, not an exception, for galamsey cases.
Adopt Case Management Software: Implement a national, integrated system to track all environmental crime cases from arrest to verdict, ensuring transparency and identifying delays.
Issue Consistent, Severe Sentencing Guidelines: To create true deterrence, impose significant fines, forfeiture orders, and custodial sentences. Asset seizure should be a primary penalty.

For Civil Society, Media, and Communities:

Community-Based Monitoring: Train and equip community watchdog groups (with legal support) to document and report incidents, creating a parallel evidence network.
Sustained Public Advocacy: Keep the pressure on all actors—government, judiciary, traditional authorities—to fulfill their roles. Highlight success stories and expose failures.
Demand Transparency: Advocate for public dashboards showing the status of all galamsey-related prosecutions, forfeitures, and reclamation efforts.

For International Partners and Investors:

Support Ghana’s efforts with funding for advanced monitoring tech, capacity building for prosecutors and judges, and grants for large-scale land reclamation projects. Condition support on demonstrable progress in judicial reforms and anti-corruption measures within the mining sector.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions on Galamsey and Enforcement

What exactly is the “galamsey tax”?

The “galamsey tax” refers to an illicit practice where officials from certain local government councils (District Assemblies) in mining areas collect regular payments from operators of heavy machinery (e.g., excavators, “chinese” milling plants) that are being used for illegal mining. It is a form of official complicity that generates revenue for the local authority while tacitly permitting an illegal and destructive activity to continue.

Is using “brute force” against illegal miners legal in Ghana?

The use of force by state security agencies is legal only under specific, constitutional conditions. The Ghana Police Service, for instance, is empowered to use reasonable force in the execution of its duties (Police Service Act, 1970). “Brute force” as a generalized policy is not a legal concept and is dangerous. Lawful, proactive enforcement—involving raids on active illegal mining sites, seizure of equipment, and arrest of suspects based on probable cause—is permissible and necessary. Any use of force must be proportionate, necessary, and in line with human rights standards. Extra-judicial violence or collective punishment is illegal.

How does the slow pace of court cases encourage galamsey?

Slow judicial processes severely undermine deterrence. If a miner is arrested but their case drags on for 3-5 years, the perceived risk is low. During this time, they may continue operations on bail, their financiers remain free, and the seized equipment may even be returned. This creates a “cost of doing business” mentality where the fines and eventual penalties, when finally imposed, are often less than the profits earned during the delay. Swift conviction and asset forfeiture would change this calculus entirely.

What is land reclamation and why is it part of the solution?

Land reclamation is the process of restoring land degraded by illegal mining to a stable, productive state. This involves backfilling pits, reshaping the land, replacing topsoil, and replanting native vegetation. It is a crucial part of the solution because:

It addresses the physical legacy of destruction, preventing further erosion and water pollution.
It can return land to agricultural or forestry use, providing a long-term economic alternative to mining.
It demonstrates state commitment to remediation, which can improve community relations. However, reclamation is expensive and must be funded, in part, by the fines and forfeited assets from convicted offenders.