GoldBod CEO’s comment: Allowing unlicensed mining breaches the law – Prof Appiagyei-Atua
Professor Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua has challenged the GoldBod CEO’s comments about allowing unlicensed miners to operate pending registration, arguing that such a directive breaches Ghana’s mining laws.
The Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the University of Ghana School of Law says administrative assurances cannot override statutory licensing requirements.
In an opinion article, he challenged the position attributed to the GoldBod CEO:
“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”.
Prof Appiagyei-Atua argues that a mining operation's location does not remove the requirement to obtain a licence.
He cites Section 9 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), which requires a mineral right before mining, prospecting or exploration. He also points to Section 82’s separate licensing requirement for small-scale mining.
“Mining without that licence is not merely irregular; it is a crime.”
Citing penalties under the 2019 amendment, he says Ghanaian offenders face fines and prison terms of between 15 and 25 years.
He argues that a ministerial or administrative direction permitting unlicensed mining would exceed the powers granted by law.
“The Minister’s statutory power under section 82 is a power to grant licences. It is not a power to authorise mining without one.”
Prof Appiagyei-Atua also challenges the suggestion that avoiding rivers, forest reserves and roadsides makes an operation permissible. He cites Section 18’s environmental and forestry clearance requirements.
“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 distinguishes between supporting formalisation and allowing mining before the legal requirements are met.
He says formalisation is lawful and identifies designated mining areas, faster registration and district-level licensing support as possible routes.
“The illegality lies entirely in the sequence. The law permits registration first, then mining. The statement describes mining first, then registering.”
He argues that subsequent registration cannot erase an offence already committed.
“Regularisation cannot retroactively cure a completed offence.”
The professor further warns that miners who rely on an official assurance remain exposed to prosecution. He argues that an official representation cannot create a right that Parliament withheld.
He also raises possible liability for officials who facilitate unlawful mining and questions whether such directions comply with constitutional duties concerning discretionary power and environmental protection.
Calling for lawful resistance to galamsey, he concludes: “We must take all legal action to resist galamsey.”
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Tags:
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.