An aspiring Ashanti Regional Communication Officer of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Patrick Kwame Atuah, has raised concerns about alleged extortion, operational confusion and indiscriminate harassment by security personnel deployed to combat illegal mining, warning that such practices could undermine the government’s anti-galamsey campaign and erode public confidence in the state.
Atuah, who says he witnessed the situation during campaign visits to mining communities across the Ashanti Region, is questioning the effectiveness of the security arrangements for the government’s fight against illegal mining, particularly in areas such as Manso Nkwanta and Manso Adubia.
He alleges that personnel from different security agencies frequently visit mining communities under the pretext of conducting anti-galamsey operations, yet the activities have produced little visible improvement in the situation on the ground.
Speaking on Kessben FM’s political programme, Democracy, Atuah questioned which institution had the ultimate authority to direct and supervise anti-illegal mining operations, pointing to the involvement of the police, the military and the National Anti-Illegal Mining Operations Secretariat (NAIMOS).
“Who is in charge? Is it the police, NAIMOS or the military? Each of these groups of security people frequently visit these mining areas to harass miners and community people, all in the name of checking illegal mining, yet we don’t see any improvement in the fight against galamsey,” he said.
His concerns touch on a fundamental issue confronting Ghana’s anti-galamsey campaign: whether the growing involvement of multiple security institutions is translating into effective enforcement or creating operational overlaps that undermine the broader objective.
Questions over security coordination
The establishment of NAIMOS in June 2025 was intended to address precisely the challenge of fragmented enforcement.
Operating under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, the Secretariat was established as the central coordinating institution responsible for initiating, supervising and coordinating intelligence-led anti-illegal mining operations nationwide.
The Ministry subsequently directed that individuals or organised groups should not undertake anti-illegal mining operations without consulting the Secretariat, discouraging unauthorised raids and swoops.
The arrangement was designed to bring the military, police, immigration, intelligence services and other relevant institutions under a coordinated operational framework.
Consequently, Atuah’s allegations, if substantiated, raise questions about compliance with the government’s own coordination arrangements and whether the centralised structure is functioning effectively at the operational level.
The issue is not necessarily that multiple security agencies are involved in the fight. Indeed, the scale and complexity of illegal mining require the participation of different institutions with complementary responsibilities.
The concern is whether their activities are properly authorised, coordinated, documented and supervised.
Where different agencies conduct separate operations without clear communication or a common chain of command, there is a risk of duplicated interventions, inconsistent enforcement and uncertainty over responsibility when abuses occur.
Atuah claims that in some instances, operations take place in mining communities only for NAIMOS or the police to subsequently deny knowledge of them when enquiries are made.
“There are operations that happen in certain places and when you ask NAIMOS they will deny any knowledge of what happened. You ask the police and they’ll also say they don’t know,” he alleged.
If established, such incidents would represent a serious accountability problem, particularly in a campaign that depends heavily on public cooperation and the credibility of state institutions.
Allegations of extortion threaten credibility of campaign
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Atuah’s account is his allegation that some security personnel have turned anti-galamsey operations into opportunities to extort money from miners and residents.
He claimed that some personnel exploit the criminalisation of illegal mining to harass people engaged in mining activities, regardless of whether their operations are legally authorised.
According to him, the situation has created an environment in which lawful small-scale miners are treated in the same manner as those operating illegally.
“The security people have turned the mining area into a cash cow and are making money from their operations,” he alleged.
The allegations have not been independently established, and Atuah did not identify the individual officers or provide specific financial transactions to substantiate them. They nevertheless raise concerns that warrant investigation by the relevant authorities.
His claims also come against the background of previous concerns about individuals exploiting the anti-galamsey campaign for financial gain.
In February 2026, four people were arrested in the Atwima Nwabiagya South Municipality of the Ashanti Region for allegedly impersonating national security operatives and extorting money from miners under the guise of conducting anti-galamsey operations.
In a separate development, the Progressive Small Scale Miners Association of Ghana, on November 11, 2026, accused security agencies and other public officials of extorting money from miners during enforcement operations. The association alleged that some of its members had paid substantial sums to security personnel to avoid disruptions to their operations.
These allegations, which require independent investigation, point to the potential for the anti-galamsey campaign to be exploited by individuals seeking financial benefits from the enforcement regime.
If personnel entrusted with enforcing the law are found to be using their positions to solicit money from miners, the consequences would extend beyond individual misconduct.
It could create a system in which illegal mining continues through informal payments, while legitimate operators face intimidation and financial pressure. Such a situation would fundamentally undermine the purpose of enforcement.
It would also create perverse incentives, allowing illegal mining networks to survive by buying protection rather than complying with the law.
Implications for national security
Beyond its political and environmental implications, Atuah’s allegations raise broader national security concerns.
Illegal mining has increasingly evolved from an environmental and regulatory problem into a complex security challenge involving organised criminal networks, financial interests, equipment suppliers, gold traders and, in some instances, armed operators.
A July 2026 analysis by the Africa Center for Strategic Studies warned that illegal gold mining and associated smuggling networks were increasingly undermining security, the rule of law and legitimate businesses in Ghana.
The government’s own security establishment has also acknowledged the threat.
In August 2025, the National Security Coordinator, Commissioner of Police Abdul-Razak Osman, told the National House of Chiefs in Kumasi that illegal mining had become a national security threat, requiring a coordinated response involving state institutions, traditional authorities and local communities.
Against this background, allegations of competing security operations, questionable enforcement practices and possible extortion are particularly significant.
A security operation that lacks clear command responsibility and accountability creates opportunities for criminal infiltration, impersonation and the exploitation of state authority.
It can also compromise intelligence gathering.
Communities that lose confidence in security personnel may become reluctant to volunteer information about illegal mining activities, the movement of excavators, the identities of financiers and the networks sustaining the operations.
This could make it increasingly difficult for intelligence agencies to penetrate the criminal networks behind galamsey.
There is also the risk of confrontation between security personnel and mining communities, particularly where lawful operators feel unfairly targeted or residents believe enforcement officers are abusing their authority.
Such tensions could trigger local resistance, protests and potentially violent confrontations, further complicating an already difficult national security situation.
More importantly, when different security institutions appear to operate without a clearly identifiable chain of command, the state risks weakening the very authority it seeks to assert.
Government’s enforcement strategy under scrutiny
The concerns come at a time the government is intensifying efforts to demonstrate progress in the fight against illegal mining.
In March 2026, NAIMOS reported that it had conducted 122 operations between July 2025 and March 2026, resulting in 237 arrests, including 144 foreign nationals.
The Secretariat also reported seizing and immobilising 94 excavators, destroying 2,647 changfan platforms and recovering 59 firearms and 208 rounds of ammunition.
It attributed the reported operational gains to a unified command structure involving the military, police, immigration and intelligence services.
In October 2026, NAIMOS further announced plans to expand river protection operations and strengthen collaboration with the Ghana Navy, Forestry Commission and other intelligence agencies to prevent illegal miners from returning to cleared areas.
However, the effectiveness of such interventions cannot be measured solely by the number of arrests, excavators seized or mining equipment destroyed.
The ultimate test is whether illegal mining is declining, degraded environments are being restored, water bodies are being protected and affected communities are experiencing sustainable improvements.
Atuah’s account suggests a possible disconnect between enforcement activities and the experiences of residents in some mining communities in the Ashanti Region.
If security operations are frequent but illegal mining persists, the authorities must establish whether the problem lies in weak intelligence, inadequate prosecution, political interference, compromised personnel or the failure to sustain enforcement after security teams withdraw.
The government’s own strategy recognises the importance of sustained interventions rather than temporary raids.
NAIMOS has indicated that it intends to stabilise affected mining areas before transferring routine monitoring responsibilities to relevant security institutions, the Forestry Commission and local communities.
This makes accountability and effective coordination particularly important.
The neglected question of legal small-scale mining
Atuah also argues that the government’s response has placed excessive emphasis on enforcement without adequately educating mining communities about the distinction between legal and illegal mining.
He believes authorities should prioritise educating residents about the requirements for lawful mining and creating opportunities for people to participate in regulated small-scale mining rather than treating everyone found at mining sites as an offender.
“The authorities should teach the people what legal mining is so that they can engage in it and make a living rather than harassing everybody and calling them illegal miners,” he said.
His argument highlights an important policy dimension of the galamsey crisis.
Although illegal mining must be confronted through law enforcement, the long-term sustainability of the campaign also depends on the availability of accessible and transparent legal pathways for small-scale miners.
Ghana’s small-scale mining sector provides livelihoods for thousands of people, making it necessary to distinguish between operators who comply with licensing and environmental requirements and those who deliberately operate outside the law.
Indiscriminate enforcement could alienate legitimate operators, undermine cooperation with local authorities and reinforce perceptions that the government is criminalising livelihoods rather than addressing the networks responsible for environmental destruction.
It could also create opportunities for illegal operators to exploit the grievances of legitimate miners and mobilise communities against state institutions.
The challenge for government is therefore to combine effective enforcement with licensing reforms, education, responsible mining practices, alternative livelihood programmes and environmental restoration.
Political cost for NDC government
Atuah’s concerns also expose a potential political vulnerability for the governing NDC.
He warned that the alleged conduct of security personnel was making the party and government unpopular in mining communities, particularly among people who believe they are being unfairly targeted.
“We are making our party and government unpopular in these mining areas,” he said.
The political implications could be significant, particularly in communities where mining is a major source of employment and household income.
While the government has a responsibility to protect the environment and enforce mining laws, the manner in which enforcement is conducted can influence public acceptance of its policies.
Where residents perceive anti-galamsey operations as arbitrary, abusive or financially exploitative, public support for the campaign could weaken.
This could create a political environment in which legitimate concerns about illegal mining are overshadowed by grievances against security personnel and government institutions.
For the NDC, the danger is that a campaign intended to demonstrate the government’s commitment to environmental protection could become a source of public dissatisfaction if allegations of misconduct are not addressed.
Atuah’s intervention is particularly noteworthy because it comes from within the governing party’s political establishment, even as he seeks an executive position in its Ashanti Regional communication structure.
His criticism suggests that concerns about the implementation of the anti-galamsey campaign are not confined to opposition political parties or civil society organisations.
Calls for accountability
Atuah’s central question remains unanswered in his account: who is responsible for ensuring that every anti-galamsey operation is properly authorised, coordinated and accountable?
Although NAIMOS has been established as the central coordinating institution, its effectiveness ultimately depends on the willingness of participating security agencies to respect its authority and operate within clearly defined procedures.
The Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources and the National Security Council must therefore ensure that operational responsibilities are clearly communicated to affected communities and that complaints against personnel are investigated.
There is also a need for transparent reporting of operations, including the agencies involved, the locations covered, arrests made, equipment seized and the outcomes of investigations into alleged misconduct.
Security personnel found to have abused their authority must face appropriate disciplinary and legal consequences, regardless of their institutional affiliation.
Ultimately, Ghana’s fight against galamsey cannot succeed through raids and arrests alone. It requires credible institutions, disciplined security operations, effective intelligence, accessible legal mining opportunities and the confidence of communities whose cooperation is essential to defeating the menace.
As Atuah’s allegations bring the conduct of enforcement personnel into focus, the government faces an important test: ensuring that the institutions deployed to protect the country’s natural resources do not become part of the problem they were established to solve.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
