The Member of Parliament for Effiduase-Asokore, Dr. Nana Ayew Afriye, has raised serious concerns about the increasing politicisation of the fight against illegal mining, commonly referred to as galamsey. He warns that the issue is not only being over-politicized but is also taking on dangerous tribal undertones, which could lead to national unrest if not handled with care.

According to Dr. Afriye, certain narratives emerging from Akan-dominated regions suggest that those pushing for an end to galamsey are doing so out of resentment toward the Akan people, who have historically engaged in mining activities long before the formation of Ghana. This sentiment, he believes, is fueling a growing divide and could escalate tensions across the country.

During an interview with Hello FM, shared on YouTube on October 12, 2024, Dr. Afriye recounted a troubling conversation with an Akan man who reflected the frustrations of many in the community. "The man told me that ‘Okudzeto went to do a press conference, look at the water he showed, is he an Akan?’" Dr. Afriye explained, emphasizing the need to remove tribalism from the conversation. He continued, "If we are not careful with how this galamsey issue is being handled, and if we don’t educate people properly, the inflammatory comments from some individuals in Accra could create serious trouble for the country."

Dr. Afriye, who also serves as the Chairperson of Parliament's Health Committee, stressed that this is not merely an isolated issue but one that requires thoughtful discourse. He noted that comparisons are often made between galamsey and other environmentally damaging practices in the country, such as fishing in the Volta Region, where toxic chemicals like DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) have reportedly been used.

According to the MP, the Akan man he spoke with questioned why fishing practices in the Volta Region were not equally condemned when DDT, a highly poisonous chemical, was being introduced into water bodies. "The man also said, ‘If you go to the Volta Region, when they were using DDT in the water to fish, and the Ghana Water Company was processing these waters for drinking, why didn’t they ban fishing to see what the chiefs would do?’"

Dr. Afriye's remarks reflect his deep concern over the potential for tribal divisions to overshadow the real environmental and socio-economic challenges posed by galamsey. He insists that the focus should remain on education and sensitization, ensuring that the fight against illegal mining does not become a tool for inflaming ethnic tensions but remains a national issue to protect the environment and future generations

Pros: Why Dr. Nana Ayew Afriye May Be Right About the Tribalism Issue in the Galamsey Debate

1. Preventing National Disunity: Dr. Afriye's concerns about tribalism reflect the potential for the galamsey issue to escalate ethnic tensions, which could fracture national unity. If the issue is perceived through a tribal lens, it risks turning a national environmental crisis into an ethnic confrontation, deepening divisions and worsening conflict.

2. Misinterpretation of Anti-Galamsey Efforts: By raising awareness of how anti-galamsey campaigns may be viewed by certain ethnic groups, Dr. Afriye highlights the need for a more inclusive narrative. People in Akan-dominated regions, for instance, might feel targeted if they perceive the efforts as biased, leading to unnecessary resistance to government interventions.

3. Sensitive Historical Context: Mining in some areas, particularly Akan regions, predates modern Ghana and has cultural significance. Dr. Afriye's warning about this being overlooked acknowledges the cultural complexities behind the issue, suggesting that a one-size-fits-all approach to ending galamsey could alienate communities and worsen the situation.

4. Preemptive Warning: By pointing out the tribal undertones in the discussion, Dr. Afriye is calling for early intervention before the narrative spirals out of control. Preventing tribalism from becoming entrenched in the conversation could help maintain focus on the environmental damage caused by illegal mining, rather than allowing it to be overshadowed by ethnic grievances.

5. Equal Application of Law: His comments on other practices, such as the use of DDT in the Volta Region for fishing, bring attention to the importance of fairness and consistency in addressing environmental issues across the country. By pointing out potential double standards, he’s advocating for an approach that ensures all harmful practices are treated equally, regardless of region or tribe.

   
   

Cons: Why Dr. Nana Ayew Afriye May Be Wrong About the Tribalism Issue in the Galamsey Debate

1. Overstating Tribal Concerns: Dr. Afriye’s focus on tribalism might detract from the real environmental crisis posed by galamsey. By framing the issue in tribal terms, he could be inadvertently amplifying divisions that may not be as widespread as he suggests. The fight against galamsey is primarily about environmental protection and should remain focused on that, rather than adding a potentially divisive ethnic angle.

2. Political Diversion: His emphasis on tribalism could be seen as a political tactic to divert attention away from the government's failures in curbing galamsey. Highlighting tribal grievances might shift the blame away from policymakers and leaders responsible for addressing illegal mining activities, allowing them to avoid accountability.

3. Inaccurate Comparisons: The comparison between galamsey and the use of DDT in fishing might not hold, as the environmental impact and scale of the two issues differ significantly. Galamsey's destruction of water bodies, forests, and farmlands is widely considered more severe and long-lasting than localized fishing practices, making the two difficult to equate in terms of policy enforcement.

4. Undermining Collective Responsibility: By emphasizing tribalism, Dr. Afriye risks undermining the notion that the fight against galamsey is a collective responsibility. Illegal mining is a nationwide issue, and while it affects certain regions differently, tribal divisions should not distract from the fact that all Ghanaians share in the consequences of environmental degradation.

5. Risk of Escalating Tensions: By publicly airing tribal concerns, Dr. Afriye could unintentionally give legitimacy to tribal grievances that could further divide communities. If influential figures continue to stress ethnic differences, this could harden tribal identities and make it more difficult to unite the country around a common solution to the galamsey problem.

In summary, Dr. Afriye’s concerns about tribalism in the galamsey debate touch on genuine fears of ethnic division but may also risk diverting attention from the core issue of environmental protection and policy enforcement. Balancing these perspectives is crucial to addressing both the tribal and environmental dimensions of the problem.