Law Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh has suggested the issue of galamsey (Illegal mining) is not one of the troubling issues we have to be discussing.
The lawyer in a barrage of questions asked the specific areas of galamsey we should be discussing.
His response follows the call by President Akufo-Addo in his last State of the Nation Address.
In his address on Tuesday, the president said Ghanaians must have an open discussion on galamsey since it leads to the devastation of our water bodies.
”There is one subject about which I believe we, the people, need to have an open conversation, and that is galamsey. Should we allow or should we not allow galamsey, the illegal mining that leads to the pollution of our water bodies and the devastation of our landscape? As I have said often, the Almighty having blessed us with considerable deposits of precious minerals, there would always be mining in Ghana.
Indeed, there has always been mining in Ghana. The problem we have is the use of modern technology that leads to the illegal mining methods posing serious dangers to our water bodies and the health of our environment. The pollution of our rivers and water resources has been so acute on occasion that the Ghana Water Company is unable to afford the distilling of water to make for safe drinking. We have to talk about galamsey. We, who are leaders, owe it to the country to take the subject out of the party-political arena, and have an honest conversation about this menace to our future.”
In reacting, the law Professor quizzed ”What exactly is the moral, philosophical, or policy dilemma here, especially after we have been presented with a catalogue of the social and economic costs associated with the activity? Is this the final act of surrender and capitulation by the constitutionally designated fiduciary? Has the lure of illicit gold defeated our official resolve to fight it?”
Read his full post below
What national “conversation” is there to be had about “galamsey”? What are the proposals on the table? Decriminalize it? Denationalize state ownership of minerals? Make profiteering and impunity from participation in the illicit activity non-selective and nonpartisan? Regularize the Chinese role?
What exactly is the moral, philosophical, or policy dilemma here, especially after we have been presented with a catalogue of the social and economic costs associated with the activity? Is this the final act of surrender and capitulation by the constitutionally designated fiduciary? Has the lure of illicit gold defeated our official resolve to fight it?
Is our perverse party politics standing in the way, as usual? There are conversations to be had about a whole range of very troubling matters in this land. Galamsey is not one of them. We are either fighting galamsey or we are not. (We are not, of course). What other conversation is there to have about it? Or is Galamsey the New Okada?LikeCommentShare
By: Rainbowradioonline.com
