Ghanaians have been calling on the government of President Akufo-Addo to end the Galamsey menace in the country that is destroying our water bodies, forest reserves and the environment. In his first term, the president made a genuine attempt to battle the menace; equipment belonging to the illegal miners (galamseyers) were seized; but somehow the seized equipment, mostly excavators, found their way back into their owners’ hands to further their destructive illegal mining activities.

There is always a second chance! So, enter his second term in office, and the president decides to up the ante in the battle against galamsey with Operation Halt II. Given the lessons learned from the previous experience, this time around the government decides that it will not go seizing excavators but rather will simply destroy (burn) any equipment (excavators, chamfangs, etc.) that the soldiers leading the operation will find being employed for illegal mining activity (galamsey) in any water body or forest reserve. Hence, they simply torch such equipment.

As would be expected, this approach does not sit well with some people. No problem; that’s normal and understandable. But what I find curious is how some of these persons are now accusing the president and his government of acting illegally by way of burning the galamseyers’ equipment employed in their illegal activities, particularly the excavators. What is curious still is how these critics consistently make reference to a certain law governing seizure of assets and how the government should apply that law or abide by the same.

Well, as I’ve noted elsewhere (in another Ghanaweb article), I am not a lawyer; and because of that I usually restrain myself when it comes to matters of law. But sometimes, it’s simply difficult to hold off. After all, aren’t we all bestowed with abilities for logical reasoning by the Creator?

By all means, if there is a law that governs the government’s action in this undertaking and binds it to act otherwise, then the government must respect the law and abide by same. However, so far what I’ve been hearing from these critics is merely pointing to a certain law that governs seizure of assets. But they ignore the fact that the government has never announced anywhere that it is seizing galamsey equipment (assets). So, I don’t get the point of these critics.

Government is neither an armed robber nor a petty thief who would just forcibly snatch your asset from you without any explanation whatsoever. For that reason, the government usually lets you know if/when it is seizing your asset. In such a case, there would be a record of the seized asset, it would be inventoried, it would be kept in some place (if it's a movable asset), and you would typically know where it is stored and also have the opportunity to follow up on it as may be applicable. I mean, seizure of an asset by the state typically follows a certain process, regardless of how the actual seizure was done. Again, the government would usually make its intent known to you.

In the current situation, however, the government has not indicated any intent to seize any galamseyers’ equipment. Yet, the critics are attempting to tell the government what its intent is. How so? Does it lie in your mouth to tell the government what its intent is? If these critics truly believe that the government is in the wrong in terms of the law, they know what to do. Ours is a democracy, they are free to go to court and challenge the government.

Now, let’s pause and put things in perspective. Consider a case where you are constructing a building on a waterway (illegal construction). Let’s assume that you are doing this illegal building project somewhere in Accra. The Accra Metropolitan Authority (AMA) serves you notice to discontinue your project with a “Stop Work” order. But you flatly refuse to heed the order until your building reaches roofing stage. So, one day the AMA comes in to pull down your building (illegal structure).

What has just happened in this scenario? Has the AMA seized or confiscated your building? Clearly, not. The AMA has simply demolished your building. They have not seized your building? No seizure or confiscation whatsoever can be deemed to have occurred in this case.

Now juxtapose the scenario described above with the galamsey equipment burning situation. The galamseyers who are indulging in illegal mining activities in our water bodies and forest reserves can be compared to that builder who illegally constructs a building on a waterway. The government in this case is equivalent to the AMA in the scenario. The “stop work” order issued by the AMA can be compared to the government’s warning notice to galamseyers to stop their illegal operations and move their equipment out of the water bodies and forest reserves. The galamseyers’ refusal to heed the government’s warning is similar to the refusal of the builder to heed the AMA's warning. Finally, the government eventually moving in to destroy (burn) the galamseyers’ equipment sitting in the water bodies and forest reserves can be compared to the AMA moving in to demolish the builder’s illegal structure on the waterway. Na who cause am?

It is therefore, difficult for some of us to appreciate the argument about a certain law regarding what to do with seized equipment and how the government is failing to apply the law. Who is talking of seized equipment? Don’t get me wrong. Of course, I can understand the sentiments about torching people’s equipment that generally tend to be quite expensive. Especially if you are a business-minded person or an entrepreneur who knows just how difficult it is to acquire such capital assets (equipment), particularly in our part of the world. So, I get it. I have no qualms about that line of argument, but that’s a different line of argument altogether.

By the way, while I can appreciate that line of argument and one is even tempted to feel sorry for those whose excavators and/or other equipment are being burned, we ought not to let those genuine sentiments make us to lose sight of the havoc that these illegal miners are wreaking on the environment and the existential threat that their reckless activities pose for us as a people and especially for future generations. The question is, which is more costly? The government’s action or the galamseyers actions?

There are also those who say that the government could have seized the equipment and used them to do reclamation of the sites that have been devasted by the activities of these illegal miners. That’s a sound argument. But again, there are many questions to answer.

How do we know for sure that it would necessarily cost less for the government to use the “seized” equipment to do the reclamation? How do we know that hiring private companies that specialize in reclamation works to do the job would not cost less? If the government decides to seize and use the galamseyers’ equipment for the reclamation, it would still need to buy fuel and probably also hire labour to run the seized equipment for the job. Even if the government decides to use soldiers to operate the equipment to do the job, still, how much would that cost the government? I mean, there’s no free lunch. And who says that the soldiers cannot be given better assignment? After all, reclamation may not be their specialization. There are companies such as Engineers & Planners who specialize in such activity.

Anyway, as I have already noted above, I have no qualms whatsoever with those whose concerns stem from the empathy angle or from the economic angle. I mean, those are legitimate and reasonable concerns. But my issue is with those who are coming from a legal angle; they are yet to convince me that the so-called law governing asset seizure applies in this case.

As painful as it might seem or be, I believe that the approach chosen by the president and his government is the right one. I also believe that it is lawful. At least, I hope to God that it is.