The debate over whether the government should declare a state of emergency to tackle the illegal mining menace, widely known as galamsey has taken a new turn, as policy think tank IMANI Africa has laid bare all the issues at stake should the calls be implemented.
IMANI says a critical analysis of the situation reveals that declaring a state of emergency will mean a lot for the country.
In its latest brief titled “Declaring a State of Emergency on Galamsey: Solution or Short-Term Fix? A Pragmatic Pathway”, IMANI outlines both the potential benefits and serious risks that come with invoking Article 31 emergency powers.
The Case for Declaring a State of Emergency
According to IMANI, a declaration of a state of emergency will result in some benefits for the country in the fight against the menace.
The think tank says the move could deliver rapid and concentrated action in the areas most devastated by illegal mining. Extraordinary powers would allow the state to:
Redeploy security forces quickly, closing down mining pits and dismantling criminal syndicates.
Expedite the seizure of excavators and equipment, bypassing bureaucratic delays that often frustrate enforcement.
Impose curfews or restrict movement in hotspots where illegal operators thrive.
Symbolically, it will elevate galamsey from a mere policy challenge to a national crisis, justifying greater resource allocation and creating political space to confront powerful patronage networks linked to the trade.
“A state of emergency would enable rapid, concentrated action where the crisis is most acute: immediate redeployment of security resources, temporary suspension of processes that slow enforcement, expedited seizures of equipment, and the authority to impose curfews or movement restrictions in high‑risk zones,” IMANI’s brief argued.
IMANI argues that such a bold move could restore hope to devastated farming communities, protect rivers from toxic pollution, and send a strong signal that government is serious about saving livelihoods and lives.
The Risks of an Emergency Approach
Despite the potential gains, IMANI, however, also warns that emergency powers are a blunt instrument that could carry significant downsides if mismanaged. Among the potential risks, IMANI highlighted a number of them;
Civil liberties could be infringed, with freedoms suspended in affected areas.
Power could be over-concentrated in the executive, weakening checks and balances.
Short-term security gains may not last if prosecutions are not sustained in civilian courts after the emergency lapses.
Communities reliant on small-scale mining incomes could be alienated, worsening tensions if enforcement is overly militarized.
Politically, the government risks accusations of overreach or incompetence if the measures fail to dismantle the entrenched galamsey networks or are seen as a substitute for long-term reforms.
IMANI said, “Emergency powers are blunt instruments that risk infringing civil liberties, concentrating authority in the executive, and weakening oversight mechanisms that deter abuse. Short‑term security gains can be undermined if emergency measures are used selectively, if prosecutions are not sustained in civilian courts afterwards, or if they entrench militarized responses that alienate communities dependent on informal mining incomes.”
A Delicate Balance
IMANI’s analysis raises the real question of whether the emergency powers can deliver quick wins without abuses. It also raises whether those wins will endure once the emergency ends.
The think tank is therefore stressing that the government must critically analyze these consequences before any course of action.
