• A legal practitioner has said Akufo-Addo’s statement that affected owners of burnt mining equipment is right within the confines of Ghana’s law

• According to him, it is the president’s fundamental duty to maintain law and order

• He disagreed with colleague lawyers who condemned President Akufo-Addo’s comment

Private Legal Practitioner, Yaw Oppong, has jumped to the defence of President Nana Akufo-Addo who said those agitating about the burning of excavators used for illegal mining in water bodies and forest reserves should go to court.

Despite the growing condemnation for Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo calling for affected persons to lay their complaints before the law, Lawyer Oppong has said it is legitimate.

“I sometimes get surprised at lawyers who tell colleague lawyers they are wrong on the law. Yes, you can disagree with their argument. But these things are settled in court. Why should you have a problem with him saying you should go to court? Where else should we go? The moment two people do not agree on an issue, there is the need for determination.” He told Citi TV.

Some members of the Ghana Armed Forces were deployed to take charge over the deterioration of water bodies and forest reserves following the overwhelming increase of galamsey practices in the country.

The team, known as the ‘Operation Halt’ task force, is said to have supervised the burning of about 8 out of 11 confiscated excavators and other mining equipment.

The action has received several backlashes by some persons who believe they could be useful for other purposes.

But Yaw Oppong explained that, “One of the fundamental duties of the President is the maintenance of the law. The person who is to enforce and maintain the law is saying that this is my understanding of the law, but people seem to disagree with me. He has therefore asked those who disagree with him to go to court. Then others come up and disagree with his statement that no right passes for people who flout the law. The final judgement on these things lies with the court. The call to go to court is thus a right call. How can you disagree with this call while you urge him to go to Parliament for amendment?”