Introduction
“Nea ye boe” is an Nzema phrase which interprets loosely as “watch intently” or “be vigilant”. The phrase comes from a well-liked music by Safohene Djeni. However why the selection of “Nea ye boe” as a part of the title for this text?
First, “Nea ye boe” resonates with the adage, “if you wish to enchantment to somebody, converse within the language they perceive”. The Minister for Lands and Pure Sources, Hon. Emmanuel Armah Kofi Buah, hails from Nzemaland and can recognize the deep that means hooked up to the phrase.
Second, Hon. Buah was as soon as interviewed on the KSM Present, the place he eloquently sang the music “Nea ye boe” and defined its lyrics. The theme of the music, subsequently, won’t be misplaced on him.
Third, my in-laws from Princess City and Esiama will probably be proud that, after years of giving me their daughter in marriage, I can now determine Nzema phrases and say “mede” — that means “I perceive”.
The problem of mining in forest reserves has resurfaced in current weeks following a call by the Ministry of Surroundings, Science and Know-how to put earlier than Parliament an instrument to amend the Environmental Safety (Mining in Forest Reserves) Laws, 2023 (L.I. 2462) — a part of efforts to cease unlawful mining in forest reserves and water our bodies.
The proposed modification seeks to take away the so-called presidential powers to grant mining rights in Globally Important Biodiversity Areas (GSBAs). One of many causes cited for selecting modification over revocation is that “if the L.I. is revoked, the EPA will be unable to carry out its features of coming into the forest reserves as a result of they’ll want a forest entry allow from the Forestry Fee”.
It has additionally been steered that “if the L.I. is revoked, the operations of some giant mining firms which have invested billions of cedis will probably be impacted”.
This transfer is considered by many, together with organised labour, the Coalition In opposition to Unlawful Mining, and CSOs working within the sector, as a misstep. It’s thought of a misstep as a result of stakeholders and political commitments made in the course of the elections have constantly known as for the revocation of L.I. 2462. “Nea ye boe medeama!” — Be vigilant, my brother.
On this article, I search to supply counter-arguments in help of revoking L.I. 2462. In an earlier article titled “Revocation of L.I. on Mining in Forest Reserves: What’s the Position of Parliament?”, I responded to an interview by then-Minister for Lands and Pure Sources, Hon. Samuel Jinapor, the place he said: “… These issues in (sic) the revocation of the L.I. are inside the bosom of Parliament, however the authorities will discharge its dedication by triggering the method of revocation, and thereafter it is going to be inside the remit of Parliament to take care of it.”
In that article, I examined Parliament’s function — if any — within the revocation strategy of an L.I.
I argued that Parliament has a really restricted function within the revocation course of — a task that’s largely a matter of courtesy prolonged to the Home by the Minister accountable for Lands and Pure Sources. I additional said that:
“A easy process of notifying Parliament by a press release on the ground of the Home needs to be sufficient to revoke the L.I. Any fanciful procedural niceties of laying a revocation L.I. will result in absurdities. The assertion notifying Parliament of the revocation should additionally comprise info on the consequential and interim measures — within the case of L.I. 2462, the impact on any situations in licenses which have been issued pursuant to the L.I.”
Some considered this as alien to our constitutional structure on law-making and argued {that a} revocation L.I. have to be laid earlier than Parliament, and if not annulled by two-thirds after 21 sitting days, the L.I. stands revoked. It’s value noting that the so-called revocation L.I. was by no means laid earlier than Parliament. Thus, the “burden” to revoke L.I. 2462 has been handed to the present authorities — a cost it dedicated to.
Why Revoke and Not Amend?
1. L.I. Breaches the Structure on Pure Sources Governance
The 1992 Structure of Ghana locations regulatory accountability for pure sources — in addition to coverage coordination — particularly with the Pure Useful resource Commissions established both by the Structure or Parliament. The Environmental Safety Company (EPA) just isn’t a delegated pure sources fee.
L.I. 2462 successfully grants the EPA authority to oversee and management the utilisation of mineral sources inside forest reserves. This encroaches on the mandates of the Minerals and Forestry Commissions and exceeds the EPA’s designated features beneath its establishing laws. It could have been inside the EPA’s mandate if the L.I. set environmental requirements or expanded Environmental Influence Evaluation (EIA) necessities for mining in forest reserves. Amending the L.I. would solely proceed this constitutional breach.
2. L.I. 2462 Lacks a Sound Legislative Foundation
Given the EPA’s lack of capability to manage the utilisation of pure sources, the legislative foundation for L.I. 2462 is questionable. The L.I. was reportedly laid by the Minister for Surroundings, Science and Know-how beneath part 62(1) of the repealed Environmental Safety Company Act, 1994 (Act 490).
Part 62(1) empowers the Minister to make rules to provide impact to Act 490. Nevertheless, a Legislative Instrument will need to have a transparent authorized foundation. L.I. 2462 lacks this authorisation, and any try by an administrative officer or physique to create rules with out clear legislative backing dangers breaching the separation of powers precept.
Even beneath the broadest interpretation, justifying L.I. 2462 beneath Act 490 is extraordinarily difficult. The brand new Environmental Safety Authority Act, 2024 (Act 1124), enacted on January 6, 2025, additionally maintains EPA’s powers centered solely on environmental regulation, not useful resource allocation. Amending the L.I. won’t remedy this legislative defect.
3. L.I. Introduces a Dysfunctional Governance Construction
L.I. 2462 creates a Mining in Forest Reserve Committee, comprising:
- A Liaison Group facilitating mining actions
- A Steering Committee overseeing budgets and coverage implementation
- Native Liaison Teams managing mining actions in every reserve
But, has this construction protected our forest reserves? Res ipsa loquitur — the info converse for themselves.
4. L.I. Offers No New Environmental Requirements
The environmental requirements in L.I. 2462 are duplicative — the EPA already enforces them by the EIA Laws. Necessities corresponding to confining excavation and guaranteeing safeguards may be demanded in EIAs while not having this L.I.
The EPA has traditionally carried out this function with out L.I. 2462. Subsequently, the requirements in Laws 6–18 of L.I. 2462 are redundant and may be carried out by the prevailing EIA framework.
5. Different Points with L.I. 2462
Past authorized flaws, L.I. 2462 has sensible weaknesses:
- Weak sanctions: The utmost penalty is one 12 months’s imprisonment or a effective of 250 penalty models — weak in comparison with different rules just like the Timber Useful resource Administration and Legality Licensing Laws, 2017.
- Lack of stakeholder engagement: Regardless of rising follow, conventional authorities, CSOs, and community-based stakeholders weren’t adequately consulted.
- No gender quotas: L.I. 2462 creates three new establishments however fails to include gender quotas — a departure from current legislative tendencies.
6. Arguments for Modification Are Unconvincing
Claims that revocation will hinder the EPA’s operations are inaccurate. Beneath each Act 490 and Act 1124, the EPA is empowered to set, monitor, and implement environmental requirements while not having a Forestry Fee allow.
Equally, fears that revocation would have an effect on giant mining firms are misplaced. Such firms sometimes have stabilisation clauses of their leases, defending them towards authorized adjustments. Moreover, main mining in forest reserves predates L.I. 2462.
Conclusion
The financial contribution of mining is plain. Efforts to handle unlawful mining and its environmental and well being impacts are laudable.
Nevertheless, if the underlying legislative framework is flawed, the specified influence won’t be achieved. Tinkering with L.I. 2462 is, in my thought of view, an train in futility. Revocation of L.I. 2462 — coupled with a ban on mining in forest reserves — gives Ghana the chance to rethink and develop a complete coverage and legislative framework.
A coverage that balances financial improvement with ecological sustainability and intergenerational fairness.
“Nea ye boe” — Hon. Ministers for Lands and Pure Sources and Surroundings, Science and Know-how — revocation of L.I. 2462 was the dedication. Something in need of revocation sends the fallacious sign within the battle towards unlawful mining — a battle we should win in any respect prices to save lots of our nation from the grip of unlawful mining cartels.
“Nea ye boe Medeama”!!!
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Feedback, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform don’t essentially signify the views or coverage of Multimedia Group Restricted.
Tags:
Source link
