An altercation between ministerial colleagues that can yet yield useful results

The comment made by the Attorney General’s office that the charges made against galamsey operators within the echelons of the NPP government are “empty of evidence” seems to be lacking in decorum.

Ministers are chosen for such a high office because they are deemed capable of resisting any temptation to be disrespectful to their colleagues, even when those colleagues have left office. Certainly, views between them can be diverse, even antagonistic. That’s because it is in the nature of politics that disagreements should occasionally occur.

But let’s be particular. What, I ask the AG’s office, is “evidence”? I can best answer the question by providing an empirical example.

I once lost a beautiful car in London after I’d left it at a washing bay for it to be valeted whilst I went to a news agent’s to buy a paper. When I came back, the car was nowhere to be seen.

The person to whom I’d left it said it wasn’t he who received the car. And I couldn’t prove it was he – for the car washers all looked alike to me and besides, they wore much the same sort of outfits (no uniforms, mind!)

Of course, I went straight to the police. But the famous “London bobby”, ever ready (in fawning newspaper articles) to be as helpful and efficient as could be imagined, didn’t even bother to go and investigate the theft at the washing bay. They just said there was “no evidence” that could lead them to go and talk to the suspects!

“But it’s you who are the experts who have been taught how to find “evidence”? I asked. They weren't having any of it.

I was flabbergasted. Yes, “evidence” was only “evidence” when the person to whom it was presented was prepared to accept it.

So here is a minister who says top people in the ruling party were engaged in galamsey. Was that not true? Hadn’t one top party official boasted on TV that he was making “one million dollars a day” from gold mining?

Had the AG’s office bothered to check from YouTube whether the guy had actually made such a statement? Could all that money be coming from legitimate sources?

Now, only a totally naive person would believe that the business activities of an important person in Ghana can be “investigated” just like that. The moment such an investigation begins, telephone calls would be made of a sort that can be answered with just two words: “YES SAH!”

In an article published in September 2019, I wrote:

QUOTE: “I would like to reiterate something I said in [another] article, entitled: “LAWS ARE MERE WORDS WRITTEN ON PAPER” (The Ghanaian Times 17 September 2019),

(I pointed out in that article) that court cases can serve as a means of educating the public (and that) if I were the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, I would go to court myself to prosecute a group of 20 Chinese arrested on Friday, 13th September 2019. Needless to say, my suggestion was received with the usual STONY SILENCE with which the Ghanaian Establishment often reacts to matters raised by members of the public.

I went on: “Members of the public services have been appointed to their positions on merit. So who is to imply (by making suggestions to them) that they do not know what is in the public interest?

[In another report] TWENTY CHINESE NATIONALS and some Ghanaians were arrested, as they engaged in galamsey. One would have thought that in OUR SELF-PROCLAIMED NEW REGIME of zero-tolerance for galamsey, signalled by the passing of legislation imposing mandatory prison sentences for galamseyers, these Chinese law-breakers and their Ghanaian sponsors would be processed and taken before the courts in double quick time “pour encourager les autres”? [serve as a deterrent to other would-be law-breakers]?

After all, hadn't the President of the Republic himself castigated state institutions that deal with such offences as being "delinquent" at their jobs? Where else but in sleepy Ghana would an AG's office, in the face of such a stinging rebuke from the President, continue being as somnolent as before?

Of course, it doesn't also seem to occur to anyone prosecuting galamsey operators, that if a foreigner has ACTUALLY been caught breaking the law by engaging in galamsey, then his immigration status is ipso facto IRRELEVANT.

… If we go on allowing galamsey to destroy all our water bodies – which shall surely be the case if galamsey goes on at the current rate – future generations of humans cannot continue to subsist on this glorious land of ours after the present IGNOBLE generation is dead and gone!

A lady foreign chemist who once worked here remarked to me one day in 1967 that “Ghanaian water is one of the best in the world!” This was after she had collected samples of water all over the country, in preparation for establishing an industrial enterprise that depended on the availability of goods, and clean water for its success.

SIXTY YEARS ON, I AM SURE SHE WOULDN'T TOUCH THE WATER IN ANY OF OUR BIG RIVERS (SUCH AS "SWEET" DENSU)!

Inasmuch as the destruction of our water bodies through galamsey is as harmful to our society as corruption, and whereas we have found it necessary to create a Special Prosecutor to take on cases of corruption, can’t we, at the very least, not assign one or two sharp lawyers in the AG's office EXCLUSIVELY to prosecute galamsey cases, please? Lawyers sharp enough to direct the police TO ALWAYS EXTRACT FROM GALAMSEY OFFENDERS, THE PARTICULARS OF THEIR SPONSORS SO, THAT THE SPONSORS TOO CAN BE PROSECUTED?

If appointed, the special galamsey lawyers must ensure that the courts do not unnecessarily adjourn galamsey cases that come before them. In this connection, funds should be made specially available so that the idea mooted by the former Chief Justice, Mrs Georgina Theodora Woode, that special galamsey courts should be established, CAN BE URGENTLY REVISITED.