Introduction

“Nea ye boe” is an Nzema phrase which translates loosely as “watch intently” or “be vigilant”. The phrase comes from a popular song by Safohene Djeni. But why the choice of “Nea ye boe” as part of the title for this article?

First, “Nea ye boe” resonates with the adage, “if you want to appeal to someone, speak in the language they understand”. The Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, Hon. Emmanuel Armah Kofi Buah, hails from Nzemaland and will appreciate the deep meaning attached to the phrase.

Second, Hon. Buah was once interviewed on the KSM Show, where he eloquently sang the song “Nea ye boe” and explained its lyrics. The theme of the song, therefore, will not be lost on him.

Third, my in-laws from Princess Town and Esiama will be proud that, after years of giving me their daughter in marriage, I can now identify Nzema phrases and say “mede” — meaning “I understand”.

The issue of mining in forest reserves has resurfaced in recent weeks following a decision by the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology to lay before Parliament an instrument to amend the Environmental Protection (Mining in Forest Reserves) Regulations, 2023 (L.I. 2462) — part of efforts to stop illegal mining in forest reserves and water bodies.

The proposed amendment seeks to remove the so-called presidential powers to grant mining rights in Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas (GSBAs). One of the reasons cited for choosing amendment over revocation is that “if the L.I. is revoked, the EPA will not be able to perform its functions of entering the forest reserves because they will need a forest entry permit from the Forestry Commission”.

It has also been suggested that “if the L.I. is revoked, the operations of some large mining companies that have invested billions of cedis will be impacted”.

This move is viewed by many, including organised labour, the Coalition Against Illegal Mining, and CSOs working in the sector, as a misstep. It is considered a misstep because stakeholders and political commitments made during the elections have consistently called for the revocation of L.I. 2462. “Nea ye boe medeama!” — Be vigilant, my brother.

In this article, I seek to offer counter-arguments in support of revoking L.I. 2462. In an earlier article titled “Revocation of L.I. on Mining in Forest Reserves: What is the Role of Parliament?”, I responded to an interview by then-Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, Hon. Samuel Jinapor, where he stated: “… Those matters in (sic) the revocation of the L.I. are within the bosom of Parliament, but the government will discharge its commitment by triggering the process of revocation, and thereafter it will be within the remit of Parliament to deal with it.”

In that article, I examined Parliament's role — if any — in the revocation process of an L.I.

I argued that Parliament has a very limited role in the revocation process — a role that is largely a matter of courtesy extended to the House by the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources. I further stated that:

"A simple procedure of notifying Parliament through a statement on the floor of the House should be enough to revoke the L.I. Any fanciful procedural niceties of laying a revocation L.I. will lead to absurdities. The statement notifying Parliament of the revocation must also contain information on the consequential and interim measures — in the case of L.I. 2462, the effect on any conditions in licenses that have been issued pursuant to the L.I."

Some viewed this as alien to our constitutional architecture on law-making and argued that a revocation L.I. must be laid before Parliament, and if not annulled by two-thirds after 21 sitting days, the L.I. stands revoked. It is worth noting that the so-called revocation L.I. was never laid before Parliament. Thus, the “burden” to revoke L.I. 2462 has been passed to the current government — a charge it committed to.

---

Why Revoke and Not Amend?

1. L.I. Breaches the Constitution on Natural Resources Governance

The 1992 Constitution of Ghana places regulatory responsibility for natural resources — as well as policy coordination — specifically with the Natural Resource Commissions established either by the Constitution or Parliament. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not a designated natural resources commission.

L.I. 2462 effectively grants the EPA authority to supervise and control the utilisation of mineral resources within forest reserves. This encroaches on the mandates of the Minerals and Forestry Commissions and exceeds the EPA’s designated functions under its establishing legislation. It would have been within the EPA's mandate if the L.I. set environmental standards or expanded Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements for mining in forest reserves. Amending the L.I. would only continue this constitutional breach.

2. L.I. 2462 Lacks a Sound Legislative Basis

Given the EPA’s lack of capacity to regulate the utilisation of natural resources, the legislative basis for L.I. 2462 is questionable. The L.I. was reportedly laid by the Minister for Environment, Science and Technology under section 62(1) of the repealed Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490).

Section 62(1) empowers the Minister to make regulations to give effect to Act 490. However, a Legislative Instrument must have a clear legal basis. L.I. 2462 lacks this authorisation, and any attempt by an administrative officer or body to create regulations without clear legislative backing risks breaching the separation of powers principle.

Even under the broadest interpretation, justifying L.I. 2462 under Act 490 is extremely challenging. The new Environmental Protection Authority Act, 2024 (Act 1124), enacted on January 6, 2025, also maintains EPA’s powers focused solely on environmental regulation, not resource allocation. Amending the L.I. will not cure this legislative defect.

3. L.I. Introduces a Dysfunctional Governance Structure

L.I. 2462 creates a Mining in Forest Reserve Committee, comprising:

• A Liaison Group facilitating mining activities
• A Steering Committee overseeing budgets and policy implementation
• Local Liaison Groups managing mining activities in each reserve

Yet, has this structure protected our forest reserves? Res ipsa loquitur — the facts speak for themselves.

4. L.I. Provides No New Environmental Standards

The environmental standards in L.I. 2462 are duplicative — the EPA already enforces them through the EIA Regulations. Requirements such as confining excavation and ensuring safeguards can be demanded in EIAs without needing this L.I.

The EPA has historically performed this role without L.I. 2462. Therefore, the standards in Regulations 6–18 of L.I. 2462 are redundant and can be implemented through the existing EIA framework.

5. Other Issues with L.I. 2462

Beyond legal flaws, L.I. 2462 has practical weaknesses:

• Weak sanctions: The maximum penalty is one year’s imprisonment or a fine of 250 penalty units — weak compared to other regulations like the Timber Resource Management and Legality Licensing Regulations, 2017.
• Lack of stakeholder engagement: Despite growing practice, traditional authorities, CSOs, and community-based stakeholders were not adequately consulted.
• No gender quotas: L.I. 2462 creates three new institutions but fails to incorporate gender quotas — a departure from recent legislative trends.

6. Arguments for Amendment Are Unconvincing

Claims that revocation will hinder the EPA's operations are inaccurate. Under both Act 490 and Act 1124, the EPA is empowered to set, monitor, and enforce environmental standards without needing a Forestry Commission permit.

Similarly, fears that revocation would affect large mining companies are misplaced. Such companies typically have stabilisation clauses in their leases, protecting them against legal changes. Additionally, major mining in forest reserves predates L.I. 2462.

---

Conclusion

The economic contribution of mining is undeniable. Efforts to address illegal mining and its environmental and health impacts are laudable.

However, if the underlying legislative framework is flawed, the desired impact will not be achieved. Tinkering with L.I. 2462 is, in my considered view, an exercise in futility. Revocation of L.I. 2462 — coupled with a ban on mining in forest reserves — offers Ghana the opportunity to rethink and develop a comprehensive policy and legislative framework.

A policy that balances economic development with ecological sustainability and intergenerational equity.

“Nea ye boe” — Hon. Ministers for Lands and Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Technology — revocation of L.I. 2462 was the commitment. Anything short of revocation sends the wrong signal in the fight against illegal mining — a fight we must win at all costs to save our nation from the grip of illegal mining cartels.

“Nea ye boe Medeama”!!!