Ghana’s rich landscape consists in part, of low plateaus covered by rainforests. In this picturesque setting, the spectre of illegal mining looms large, with an added layer of complexity from activities conducted by some foreign nationals. The influx of foreign involvement in the mining sector has given rise to a myriad of challenges, raising critical questions about sovereignty, environmental stewardship, and the socio-economic fabric of the nation.
Aisha Huang’s legal repercussions due to her significant participation in illicit mining have drawn considerable attention in recent media coverage. The Attorney General and his Deputy have shared their perspectives and comments on this noteworthy situation.
During a discussion on TV3’s newday Big Issues on 6th December, 2023, some politicians reacted to the comments of the Attorney General who mentioned an appeal to review the sentence and his Deputy who opposed it.
Member of Parliament for Buem Constituency in the Oti region, Kofi Iddie Adams, suggests that confusion lies within the Attorney General’s office itself. He points out the prolonged duration of this issue, emphasizing the challenge posed by conflicting statements from the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General. In expressing his viewpoint, Adams contends that the government has fallen short in effectively combating illegal mining, commonly known as galamsey.
However, the member of Parliament for Old-Tafo constituency in the Ashanti Region Vincent Ekow Assafuah, expressed strong disapproval of the Deputy Attorney General’s remarks concerning the sentence of Aisha Huang.
During the discussion, the MP highlighted the Deputy AG’s assertion that the initiation of Aisha Huang’s prosecution began in 2022, emphasizing the significance of ACT 995 in the legal proceedings. The MP believes this act is pivotal, suggesting that if the Attorney General prosecuted Aisha Huang under this law, the subsequent judgment should align with Article 995 rather than Article 900.
In reference, article 995 states that, “no penalty shall be imposed for a criminal offence that is severer in degree or description than the maximum penalty that could have been imposed for that offence at the time it was committed”.
In the rule of law, though the punishment can serve as a deterrent to others, the law ought to be the final determinant.
