GoldBod, a key player in Ghana's gold industry, has proposed an ASM Formalisation and Financing Support Programme, sparking concerns about its expanding role in the sector. According to the Ghana Gold Board Act, 2025 (Act 1140), GoldBod's functions include supporting small-scale miners and promoting responsible mining practices. However, the Act does not confer broader statutory responsibilities, such as coordinating national mineral-sector policy or regulating and managing mineral resources, which fall under the Minerals Commission.
The Minerals Commission Act, 1993 (Act 450), establishes the Commission as the statutory institution responsible for regulating and managing Ghana's mineral resources and coordinating policies. The Commission's responsibilities include making recommendations on national policy for mineral exploration and exploitation, advising the Minister responsible for Mines, and monitoring policy implementation. It is unclear whether the Commission has relinquished its mandate to GoldBod or if the government has transferred responsibilities without amending the law.
GoldBod's CEO, Sammy Gyamfi, has made public remarks suggesting that individuals could engage in mining without a licence, provided they are not operating in restricted areas. This statement has raised concerns about GoldBod's approach to matters beyond its core mandate. According to the law, a mining site's location does not grant anyone the right to mine without authorisation. Gyamfi's comments also suggest that illegal miners in Ghana number in the millions, constituting the country's largest employment group.
The proposed ASM Formalisation and Financing Support Programme has sparked concerns about GoldBod's involvement in mining-sector governance. GoldBod must confine its activities to the functions assigned to it under Act 1140 and refrain from meddling in the statutory mandate of the Minerals Commission. The government owes Ghanaians an explanation for GoldBod's increasingly influential role in directing mining-sector policy.
Ghanaians deserve clear answers about GoldBod's leadership and responsibilities under the proposed programme. They demand that GoldBod disclose the precise scope of its leadership and responsibilities, explain who is responsible for policy design and regulatory decisions, and clarify the respective roles of GoldBod, the Minerals Commission, and the Ministry responsible for Mines.
The government must clarify whether the Minerals Commission remains fully responsible for discharging its statutory duties. If GoldBod has been authorised to exercise any of these responsibilities, the government must identify the legal instrument through which that authority was conferred. The lack of transparency and clarity about GoldBod's role and responsibilities raises concerns about the governance of Ghana's mining sector.
The controversy surrounding GoldBod's expanding role highlights the need for clear communication and adherence to the law. GoldBod's statutory responsibilities in gold trading and small-scale miner support do not transfer to it the broader mining-regulatory responsibilities of the Minerals Commission. Collaboration between institutions must not become a licence for one institution to take over the mandate of another.
Key points
- GoldBod's proposed programme raises concerns about its involvement in mining-sector governance.
- The government must clarify GoldBod's role and responsibilities in the mining sector.
- The Minerals Commission's mandate and responsibilities must be respected and upheld.
