Mahama under fire over “disappointing” galamsey response at media encounter

Many Ghanaians reacted with disappointment this week after President John Dramani Mahama’s first Presidential Media Encounter failed to deliver the strong measures they expected against the worsening problem of illegal mining, commonly known as galamsey.

The event, held on 10 September 2025 at Jubilee House, was anticipated as a turning point in the national fight against the menace. Instead, the president’s responses drew criticism from civil society groups, environmental campaigners, and political opponents, who argued that his approach lacked urgency, clarity, and conviction.

The most contentious issue was Mahama’s refusal to immediately declare a state of emergency in areas ravaged by illegal mining. Journalists pressed him on whether, in light of poisoned rivers, devastated forests, displaced farmers, and overburdened water treatment facilities, such extraordinary powers would be invoked.

The President maintained that a declaration should be a last resort, stressing that existing legal remedies had not yet been fully deployed.

That position fell flat with many observers. The Ghana Coalition Against Galamsey expressed its disappointment, saying the president’s words offered little hope. In a statement, the coalition accused him of downplaying the scale of what it described as “unprecedented environmental terrorism,” pointing to the contamination of over 60 percent of Ghana’s water bodies, destruction of forest reserves, and disruption of livelihoods.

Environmental group A Rocha Ghana was equally dissatisfied, branding the president’s remarks as nothing more than excuses.

The organisation argued that the emergency option had been sidelined despite earlier assurances and warned that mining activities in the Eastern and Western regions continue largely unchecked. They further criticised the scaling back of police and enforcement operations, insisting that government lacked the will to act decisively.

From the political arena, the New Patriotic Party’s Communications Director, Richard Ahiagbah, labelled Mahama’s position as discouraging.

He contrasted the president’s current tone with his fiery rhetoric while in opposition, when Mahama had urged a tougher stance, including an outright “war” on galamsey. In Ahiagbah’s view, the administration’s current approach represents a major retreat from those commitments.

Another contentious point was Mahama’s explanation for pulling police out of certain operations. He argued that enforcement teams were sometimes harassing legitimate small-scale miners rather than targeting illegal operators, since the distinction could be unclear. Critics dismissed this justification as weak, saying the focus should be on improving enforcement capacity rather than withdrawing.

Supporters of the president, however, offered a different interpretation. Edwin Nii Lante Vanderpuye, coordinator of the District Roads Improvement Programme, described Mahama’s comments as careful and considered.

He argued that giving priority to legal remedies is essential for protecting due process, preventing excesses, and preserving democratic practices. Vanderpuye admitted that many expected a declaration of emergency but pointed out that the president made clear it remained an option.

Still, the dominant concern among observers is the growing gulf between government rhetoric and the reality on the ground. Waterways remain polluted, forests are under threat, farmers are being displaced, and rural communities are suffering the consequences. For many Ghanaians, words will no longer suffice. They want rapid and visible interventions, stronger enforcement, more resources for oversight agencies, and concrete accountability mechanisms.

The administration insists it is committed to the fight, saying its approach is measured rather than timid.

Mahama pledged to restore degraded forest reserves, improve regulatory oversight, and support alternative livelihoods for those dependent on small-scale mining.

Yet these assurances have not reassured sceptics, who argue the steps are inadequate and overdue.