Benjamin Boakye, Executive Director of the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP), has called on Ghanaian judicial and regulatory authorities to adhere strictly to the principle of regulatory symmetry when applying penalties under the Minerals and Mining Act, warning that importing criminal sanctions across distinct legal regimes risks eroding statutory coherence.
Addressing recent developments in environmental enforcement and mineral rights litigation, Ben Boakye emphasized that statutory interpretations must operate consistently across both large-scale and small-scale mining frameworks to avoid legal distortion.
He cautioned against misapplying statutory provisions enacted specifically to punish illegal small-scale mining to administrative infractions committed within the formal, large-scale concession system.
“A useful way to assess the coherence of an interpretation of the Minerals and Mining Act is to examine whether it operates consistently across the Act’s distinct regulatory regimes. If it is accepted that offences and penalties applicable to the small-scale mining regime may be invoked to punish an alleged contravention of section 14, which governs dealings in mineral rights, should the converse also be true? Respecting the distinct legislative design preserves legal certainty, reinforces regulatory coherence and gives effect to Parliament’s intention that different categories of mining activity be governed by different regulatory rules unless expressly stated otherwise.”
Benjamin Boakye, Executive Director of the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP)
Ben Boakye argued that invoking penal provisions created for illegal small-scale operations to penalize unapproved dealings under Section 14 creates an irreconcilable legislative asymmetry.
Section 14 functions primarily as an administrative control mechanism requiring ministerial approval for transfers, mortgages, or assignments of mineral rights, rather than a penal prohibition subject to criminal prosecution.
By attempting to criminalize regulatory breaches through penal frameworks designed for entirely separate categories of mining, enforcement bodies risk bypassing Parliament’s legislative design, compromising legal certainty, and introducing systemic confusion across Ghana’s extractives governance framework.
Maintaining Statutory Architecture and Administrative Control
Analyzing the statutory design of Ghana’s mining laws reveals that Parliament explicitly crafted distinct enforcement mechanisms tailored to specific operational scales.
Ben Boakye observed that neither the Minerals and Mining (General) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2173) nor the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176) establish a standalone criminal enforcement mechanism for breaches of Section 14.
Instead, subsidiary legislation treats unapproved transfers or dealings in mineral rights as “matters of regulatory administration rather than criminal prohibition under section 27 of the Act.”
Where Parliament intended for specific conduct to carry severe criminal liability, it enacted express statutory linkages; the absence of such explicit connections between Section 14 and small-scale criminal penalties highlights a deliberate legislative boundary that regulators and courts must respect.
The Imperative of Legal Certainty Amid Environmental Enforcement
The call for regulatory symmetry comes at a critical juncture as state institutions intensify efforts to combat illegal mining and severe environmental degradation across river bodies and forest reserves.
While acknowledging that recent legal precedent such as the Akonta Mining judgment rightly reinforces that “concession holders cannot permit mining activities outside the legal framework established by the State,” Ben Boakye maintained that aggressive enforcement must not override statutory integrity.
He noted that widespread ecological damage demands decisive action, yet “effective enforcement should not come at the expense of legal certainty or the coherence of the regulatory framework governing the mining sector.”
Misinterpreting operational breaches or unauthorized site activities as legally effective assignments under Section 14 improperly expands statutory boundaries beyond Parliament’s written intent.
Retooling Statutory Tools for Sector Accountability
To achieve long-term sector stability, extractives policy analysts advocate for targeted regulatory reforms rather than expansive judicial interpretation.
Ben Boakye underscored that Section 14 protects concession integrity by regulating formal shifts in legal status, requiring prior written ministerial approval before any transfer or mortgage takes legal effect.
Conflating operational misconduct with formal legal transfers risks destabilizing the security of tenure for commercial investors across the extractives landscape.
Ultimately, a coherent mining jurisprudence requires a dual commitment: uncompromising enforcement against illegal mining alongside faithful adherence to statutory architecture, ensuring that state agencies are systematically retooled to deploy the appropriate legal instruments against specific forms of misconduct.
READ ALSO: Government’s Position Paper on CRC Report: MMDCE’s Election Plan Is A Retreat in Substance
