Some civil society groups, farmer associations, and religious leaders, environmentalists and some coalitions are clamoring for a swift declaration of a state of emergency to correspond with the intensity of the galamsey crisis, but IMANI Africa says breaks must be pulled on such blanket declaration.
The major case made by the proponents of the state of emergency is that the devastation of rivers, lands, and livelihoods by the galamsey menace now meets constitutional thresholds for extraordinary action.
Despite the heightened calls, the government, however, has held back, citing fears of overreach, abuse of rights, and the limits of militarized crackdowns.
Amid the tensed and polarized debate, policy think tank IMANI is making a nuanced proposal. The think thank is proposing a middle ground that blends time-bound emergency powers with durable structural reforms.
The “Pragmatic Pathway”
The think tank believes the best approach is the pragmatic way. According to IMANI’s criticality analysis, declaring a sweeping, blanket emergency is fraught with risks. It could infringe civil liberties, centralize power in the executive, and deliver only short-term enforcement wins unless paired with broader reforms.
On the other hand, incremental measures have repeatedly been outpaced by entrenched criminal syndicates and local complicity.
To break the deadlock, IMANI proposes a pragmatic pathway that use narrowly tailored emergency measures to secure galamsey hotspots for a limited period.
The tailored emergency, the think tank says, will fast-track reforms like revoking corrupt or non-compliant licences, tightening oversight, and passing clarifying regulations.
It will also enable the authorities to conduct a forensic audit of suspect licences, backed by enforcement breathing room. In addition, it will also provide an avenue to pair emergency powers with transparent KPIs, civilian judicial oversight of prosecutions, and a transition plan that embeds environmental restoration, community compensation, and viable alternative livelihoods.
“A pragmatic pathway is to use narrowly tailored emergency measures as a time‑bound tool to secure hotspots while simultaneously fast‑tracking durable reforms: revoke corrupt or non‑compliant licences, strengthen regulatory oversight, pass clarifying legislative instruments, and cultivate viable alternative livelihoods for affected communities,” IMANI’s brief noted.
It added that, “The Presidency’s measures on equipment permits and rehabilitation create a legal and administrative foundation; a temporary emergency could create the operational breathing room to enforce those rules and complete a forensic audit of suspect licences. Any emergency deployment should be matched with transparent KPIs, civilian judicial oversight of prosecutions, and a post‑emergency transition plan that embeds environmental restoration, community compensation, and economic alternatives into a durable governance architecture to prevent relapse.”
This approach, IMANI argues, would buy the state enforcement leverage while avoiding the pitfalls of a prolonged, rights-eroding emergency.
The Need for Action
The impact of the galamsey on the affected communities and the national economy is critical. Every action aimed at fighting the menace raised critical questions. Will they see rivers restored? Will poisoned soils be rehabilitated? Will alternative jobs replace the pits?
For IMANI, the debate over whether to declare a state of emergency for galamsey is not a binary choice between action and inaction but a judgment about sequencing, institutional capacity, and political risk. Civil society’s urgency reflects real ecological and human costs that demand exceptional responses. The executive’s hesitancy reflects legitimate concerns about rights, abuse of power, and the durability of security gains.
A defensible middle way uses limited emergency powers to buy time and enforcement leverage while committing publicly and legally to the reforms that can make the temporary measures permanent and equitable.
