Ghana’s Galamsey Crisis: Why Transparency is Key to a Lasting Solution

The fight against illegal mining, locally known as galamsey, remains one of Ghana’s most pressing environmental and socio-economic challenges. In a candid assessment, former Majority Leader of Parliament, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, has stated that while a national stand against galamsey is essential, the methods employed by previous administrations were flawed and ultimately counterproductive. His insights, pointing to a critical need for a transparent, well-structured national policy, offer a crucial lens through which to understand the complex interplay of environmental destruction, political allegiance, and electoral consequences. This article delves deep into the historical context, analyzes the strategic missteps, and outlines a path forward for sustainably tackling Ghana’s illegal mining epidemic.

Key Points at a Glance

• Admission of Past Failures: Former Majority Leader Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu concedes that the operational tactics used in the previous government’s “galamsey fight” were not the best approach.
• Political entanglement: Illegal mining involved citizens from both major political parties (NPP and NDC), making a partisan crackdown inherently divisive and politically risky.
• Community Resentment: The public destruction of excavators on-site fostered deep anger in mining communities, directly impacting electoral support.
• Electoral Consequences: The handling of the galamsey issue is cited as a key factor in the loss of nearly all “mining constituencies” in recent elections.
• Multi-Factor Defeat: Electoral loss was attributed to a combination of external shocks (COVID-19, Ukraine war), governance issues, internal party affairs, and campaign conduct, including the controversial Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP).
• Call for a New Strategy: The solution lies in a depoliticized, transparent, and inclusive national policy framework, not ad-hoc, aggressive enforcement.

Background: Understanding the Galamsey Phenomenon

What is Galamsey and Why is it Devastating?

“Galamsey” is a portmanteau of “gather” and “sell,” referring to the informal, often illegal, artisanal mining sector in Ghana. While some operators hold licenses, the vast majority operate without permits, in restricted areas like forest reserves, river bodies, and farmlands. The environmental toll is catastrophic: severe deforestation, water pollution from mercury and cyanide, and the degradation of arable land. This directly threatens Ghana’s agriculture, water security (affecting sources like the Pra and Birim rivers), and public health. The economic lure is powerful—gold is a high-value commodity—but the long-term cost to national development and ecosystems is immense.

A History of Cyclical Crackdowns

Ghana’s battle with galamsey is not new. Successive governments have launched periodic military-style operations (e.g., Operation Vanguard) to flush out illegal miners, often involving joint military-police task forces. These operations typically involve seizing and destroying mining equipment, arresting operators, and temporarily halting activities. However, these efforts have historically been characterized as temporary, inconsistent, and highly politicized. Once the task forces withdraw, illegal operations often resume, sometimes with greater secrecy and community protection, creating a cycle of boom (for illegal miners), crackdown, and bust that erodes state authority and public trust.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Failed Strategy

The Core Flaw: A Politically Charged, Heavy-Handed Approach

Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu’s critique pinpoints the fundamental error: the campaign was executed in a manner that was perceived as partisan and punitive rather than national and solution-oriented. He explicitly states that galamsey was not confined to one demographic but was “engaged in by Ghanaians. Most of them are NPP and NDC.” By targeting operations in communities where the opposing party had strong support, or where the government’s own supporters were involved, the state’s action became framed not as a necessary environmental protection measure, but as a political witch-hunt or economic warfare against certain groups.

The “Excavator Burning” Catalyst for Resentment

The specific tactic of publicly burning seized excavators at mining sites is highlighted as a major miscalculation. While symbolically dramatic, this action had severe socio-economic repercussions. For many communities, these excavators represented significant, often collectively owned, capital assets. Their destruction was not just an attack on illegal mining but a direct assault on local livelihoods and perceived property rights. As Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu notes, “You went for their excavators, and you burnt them on site. The people will be angry with you.” This anger solidified into a potent political force, transforming an environmental issue into a pocketbook and identity issue for voters in affected areas.

The Electoral Price Tag: Losing the “Mining Constituencies”

The political fallout was measurable and severe. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu reveals that the ruling party (NPP) lost virtually all constituencies in Ghana’s mining belts, retaining only “two constituencies, both East and West.” This geographic pattern of loss strongly correlates with areas of intense galamsey activity, suggesting the crackdown was a decisive factor for voters. It demonstrates how a poorly executed environmental policy can have immediate and profound electoral consequences, overriding other campaign messages. The strategy failed to build a broad coalition for environmental stewardship and instead galvanized opposition based on perceived economic injustice.

The Broader Context: The DDEP and the Perfect Storm

Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu contextualizes the electoral defeat within a “perfect storm” of four factors:

1. External Shocks: The economic devastation from the COVID-19 pandemic and the global fallout of the Russia-Ukraine war, leading to inflation and cost-of-living crises.
2. Governance Issues: General perceptions of economic mismanagement or lack of responsiveness.
3. Internal Party Affairs: Potential grassroots discontent or organizational weaknesses.
4. Campaign Conduct & Resource Distribution: The strategy and messaging during the election itself.

He singles out the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP) as a critical governance factor. This policy, aimed at stabilizing the economy by restructuring government debt, forced over 840,000 retail bondholders (including individuals, pension funds, and small institutions) to swap their holdings. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu makes a direct, striking link: “Now, the 840,000 people who were domestic bondholders, assuming each person had one dependent, the number was almost the 1.7 million that we lost by. They were angry.” This illustrates how a macroeconomic policy can create a vast bloc of disaffected voters, whose anger overlapped with and amplified grievances from the galamsey communities.