The convener of the Media Coalition Against Galamsey, Ing. Kenneth Ashigbey, has criticised a recent decision by a Magistrate in Enchi to release excavators that had been impounded following their involvement in illegal mining activities.
Ashigbey described the ruling as bizarre and an unfortunate step backward in the ongoing fight against illegal mining, commonly referred to as galamsey, which continues to pose a significant threat to Ghana’s environment, natural resources, and the livelihoods of countless citizens.
The controversy stems from an incident on Sunday, March 23, when Wisdom Amuzu and three accomplices were arrested for illegal mining in the Boin River Forest Reserve, located in the Western Region.
The arrest was carried out by officers from the Forestry Commission, with support from the Enchi police.
During the operation, two excavators were seized from the site where the illegal mining activities were taking place, and the equipment was impounded as evidence for further legal proceedings.
Despite the evidence of illegal activity and the seizure of equipment tied to the crime, Magistrate Lawrence Buenor Buer of the Enchi Magistrate Court issued a ruling that raised eyebrows across the country.
The ruling not only granted bail to Wisdom Amuzu and his associates, but it also directed the Forestry Commission to allow Amuzu to evacuate the excavators and other confiscated mining equipment from the Forest Reserve to a location of his choosing.
In an interview on the Citi Breakfast Show on Wednesday, April 2, Ing. Kenneth Ashigbey, condemned the ruling, describing it as a direct contradiction of Ghana’s Mining Act, which was put in place to curb the destructive activities of illegal miners.
Ashigbey pointed out that the law clearly mandates that anyone arrested for illegal mining activities, especially within forest reserves, should face the full force of the law without the discretion of a judge to return confiscated equipment.
“Once you have arrested someone in a forest reserve, you will have to take the person to court and the law takes away the judge’s discretion and there is no ambiguity about it and so in this case, having the judge returning the seized equipment to the culprit, it is bizarre.”
Source: CNR
Discussion about this post