Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the University of Ghana School of Law, Appiagyei-Atua, has warned that public officials who direct or permit unlicensed mining could face criminal liability for abetting an offence under Ghanaian law.
The professor raised the concern in an opinion article responding to comments attributed to the Chief Executive Officer of GoldBod, who suggested that miners operating outside certain restricted areas should be allowed to continue their activities while steps are taken to regularise their operations.
“Once it’s not a water body; it’s not a forest reserve or… place like a roadside, whether the person has a licence or not; the government says we should allow the person to mine and register and regularise them,” the CEO said.
Prof Appiagyei-Atua argued that the position conflicts with Ghana’s mining laws, citing sections 9 and 82 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), which establish requirements for mineral rights and licences before mining activities can lawfully take place.
“Mining without that licence is not merely irregular; it is a crime,” he stated.
He warned that an official who directs others to engage in unlicensed mining could potentially be held liable as an abettor under section 20 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). He also raised concerns about possible liability under provisions relating to the unlawful facilitation of small-scale mining.
The professor further questioned whether permitting mining without the necessary authorisation would be consistent with constitutional obligations governing the exercise of public powers and environmental protection.
According to him, the minister responsible for mining has the statutory authority to grant licences but cannot use that authority to permit mining in the absence of the required licence.
“The Minister’s statutory power under section 82 is a power to grant licences. It is not a power to authorise mining without one,” he argued.
Prof Appiagyei-Atua also rejected the suggestion that mining operations become lawful simply because they are conducted outside rivers, forest reserves and roadsides.
“The statement’s implicit test — anywhere that is not expressly prohibited is permitted — reverses the statutory scheme, which is a permission-based regime: nothing is permitted unless affirmatively licensed,” he said.
Despite his objections, the professor acknowledged that formalising artisanal and small-scale mining was a legitimate policy objective. He proposed the establishment of designated mining areas, the introduction of faster licensing procedures and the provision of support at the district level as lawful approaches to achieving that goal.
However, he maintained that the sequence of activities was critical, arguing that miners must obtain the necessary authorisation before commencing operations.
“The illegality lies entirely in the sequence. The law permits registration first, then mining. The statement describes mining first, then registering,” he stated.
He further argued that subsequent registration or regularisation would not automatically erase an offence committed before the necessary authorisation was obtained. He also cautioned that miners could not necessarily rely on assurances from public officials as a defence against prosecution.
Prof Appiagyei-Atua urged citizens to use lawful means to challenge illegal mining and hold those responsible accountable.
“We must take all legal action to resist galamsey,” he said.
