Former Chief Justice (CJ) of Ghana, Her Ladyship, Sophia Akuffo, is questioning the loyalty of some public officials amid ongoing debate over Ghana’s mining fiscal regime.
Her concerns stem from the posture of some government officials. The former CJ is wondering whether these officials are speaking for Ghana, or for foreign mining companies?
Reacting to the latest development in the country’s fiscal regime in a press briefing, she addressed the arguments often used to caution against tightening taxes and levies on mining firms.
The former Chief Justice and a distinguished fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, warned that narratives designed to intimidate developing countries are now being echoed from within.
“The arguments advanced by foreigners to scare us should not be expounded by our own officials in this way,” she insisted. It is a question that cuts to the core of Ghana’s resource governance.
Mining countries in Africa have faced this dilemma for decades. The countries, including Ghana, are faced with how to attract foreign investment without surrendering too much value.
In Ghana’s case, gold and other minerals remain central to the economy. However, the remarks of the former CJ suggest that the bigger risk may not come from external pressure alone, but from internal alignment with those interests.
She cannot fathom why officials defend tax concessions or resist tougher fiscal measures. This, she explains, is often framed as necessary to keep investors from pulling out. But to Sophia Akuffo, this argument feels distant from everyday realities, where communities near mining zones still grapple with poor roads, limited healthcare, and environmental degradation.
She insists that public officials are entrusted to act in the national interest, not in the interest of foreign mining companies.
“Whom do they serve? That’s the question every Ghanaian should ask. Whom do they serve? Do they serve us, the people of Ghana? Or do they serve outside interests?” she quizzed.
By repeating what can be described as “fear-driven” arguments from foreign actors, she believes that trust is being eroded. The implication is not just policy misjudgment; it is a question of allegiance.
For now, if those entrusted with public office cannot clearly answer “whom do you serve?”, then the integrity of the entire system comes into question.
