Galamsey and the call for a State of Emergency: Is It the answer?

Ghana is at a crossroads. Our rivers are poisoned with mercury, our forests are vanishing, and farmlands are being swallowed by pits. The galamsey (illegal mining) menace has grown from a local problem into a national crisis. Today, many citizens are urging the President to declare a state of emergency. For example, Fix the Country movement will even be holding Galamsey Vigil on 21st September 2025. But what would it mean if President John Dramani Mahama declared a state of emergency on Galamsey — and would it work?

What the Constitution Says
Article 31 of the 1992 Constitution gives the President power to declare a state of emergency when the life of the nation is under threat—be it from war, natural disaster, or any calamity that makes normal governance impossible.

If declared, Parliament must approve it within 72 hours, and it can last up to 12 months. During this time, government gains extraordinary powers to restrict movement, seize property, and issue emergency laws.

The Supreme Court, in NPP v. Attorney-General [1993-94] 2 GLR 35 (31st December case), reminded us that even emergency powers must be exercised within the strict boundaries of the Constitution to prevent abuse.

What It Would Mean in the Galamsey Fight

Deployment of Security Forces: Soldiers and police would have sweeping powers to flush out illegal miners, destroy excavators, and secure rivers like the Pra, Ankobra, and Offin etc.

Restriction of Freedoms: Movement in mining zones could be restricted, and access to forest reserves tightly controlled.

Swift Action: Government could issue emergency bans on mercury use, river dredging, and land reclamation without long bureaucratic delays.

A National Signal: Declaring a state of emergency would send a powerful message that galamsey is not just an environmental issue but a national security threat.

Why It May Help
1. Immediate protection of water bodies and forests.

2. Strong deterrence effect: the visible presence of the military could scare off offenders.

3. Rapid enforcement without bureaucratic bottlenecks.

Why We Should Be Careful
History warns us that emergency powers can be dangerous. In Re Akoto [1961] GLR 523, the courts upheld detention without trial under the Preventive Detention Act—a decision later condemned as a dark moment in our legal history.

Declaring an emergency on galamsey could risk:

Abuse of power against innocent citizens.
Economic backlash as many rural families depend on small-scale mining for survival.

A temporary fix: once the emergency ends, galamsey may return unless deeper issues like unemployment and corruption are addressed.

Lessons from Elsewhere
In Rwanda, the government treats environmental degradation as a national security issue, using strict enforcement to protect rivers and forests.

In Botswana, strong state control and transparent regulation of diamond mining have prevented illegal exploitation without resorting to emergency powers.

These examples show that lasting success requires both firm enforcement and sustainable alternatives.

Conclusion
Declaring a state of emergency on galamsey would be a dramatic step. It would empower government to act swiftly, but it also risks repeating mistakes of the past if not handled carefully. The Constitution gives the President this tool—but as the Supreme Court warned in the 31st December case, even in emergencies, the rule of law must prevail.

Perhaps the bigger question is this: Do we want a temporary military crackdown, or a long-term solution that provides jobs, enforces regulations, and restores our environment?

The fight against galamsey cannot be won in 12 months of emergency powers. It must be fought in the years to come—through law, livelihood, and leadership.

By
Komfa Ishmael Ofori
Level 100 LLB Student
Software Coding Addict
Watsapp: 0243510505

   Comments0