A potentially explosive mining controversy is unfolding around the Draw River Forest Reserve in the Western Region, with the Gwira Youth Development Association (GYDA) petitioning President John Dramani Mahama to clarify the legal basis for proposed mining activities by Betterland Mining Company in the environmentally sensitive forest.
The petition, submitted on behalf of concerned residents of Gwira Banso and surrounding communities in the Nzema East Municipality, raises troubling questions about the government’s commitment to protecting Ghana’s forest reserves following the repeal of the controversial Environmental Protection (Mining in Forest Reserves) Regulations, 2022 (L.I. 2462).
At the heart of the controversy is a question that demands an unequivocal answer from the authorities: What legal authorisation, if any, permits Betterland Mining Company to undertake mining activities within the Draw River Forest Reserve following the repeal of L.I. 2462?
The community wants President Mahama to intervene and establish the precise legal status of the proposed operations before activities potentially capable of affecting the forest and surrounding communities advance further.
According to GYDA, residents have observed the movement of heavy equipment, security personnel and individuals allegedly connected to mining operations in the area.
The association says residents are also frequently told that the project enjoys government support.
These developments have fuelled anxiety among community members, who want the government to explain whether the reported activities have received the necessary statutory approvals and whether they are consistent with the legal protections governing forest reserves.
MAHAMA’S ENVIRONMENTAL PROMISE UNDER SCRUTINY
The controversy places renewed scrutiny on President Mahama’s campaign commitment to combat illegal mining, popularly known as galamsey, and protect Ghana’s forests and water bodies.
GYDA reminds the President that his assurances during the 2024 election campaign helped generate public expectations that his administration would take decisive action against environmental destruction.
The association argues that the government’s subsequent action to repeal L.I. 2462 was widely welcomed by those who believed the move would strengthen the protection of forest reserves against mining-related degradation.
For the residents of Gwira Banso, however, the reported developments around the Draw River Forest Reserve raise questions about whether the policy commitment is being consistently implemented on the ground.
If the government has withdrawn the regulatory framework that permitted mining in forest reserves under specified conditions, the community wants to know precisely what legal framework now governs Betterland’s proposed operations.
The concern is straightforward: a change in environmental policy must translate into effective protection, not uncertainty over which activities can proceed and under what authority.
The government must now demonstrate that its environmental commitments are being matched by transparent enforcement and verifiable legal compliance.
THE L.I. 2462 LEGAL QUESTION
L.I. 2462, formally known as the Environmental Protection (Mining in Forest Reserves) Regulations, 2022, established a regulatory framework for mining in forest reserves under specified conditions.
Its repeal in 2025 marked a significant policy development in the debate over mining and forest conservation.
But the legal consequences of that repeal must be assessed against the full legislative framework, including the revocation instrument, applicable mining legislation, existing leases and permits, and any transitional or savings provisions that may apply.
The repeal of a regulation does not, without examination of the relevant legal instruments, automatically establish the status of every pre-existing mining right or authorisation.
That distinction makes the questions raised by GYDA particularly important.
Does Betterland Mining Company possess a valid mining lease covering the relevant area? If so, what are its precise boundaries and legal conditions?
Has the company obtained the environmental permit and any other approvals required for the proposed activities?
Does any authorisation relied upon by the company remain legally effective following the repeal of L.I. 2462?
Has the relevant portion of the Draw River Forest Reserve been lawfully designated or otherwise made available for the proposed operation under the applicable legal framework?
And, critically, have the responsible regulatory authorities independently verified that the proposed activities comply with the law currently in force?
The Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, the Environmental Protection Authority, the Forestry Commission and the Minerals Commission should therefore clarify the legal position and disclose the relevant non-confidential approvals.
Until those questions are answered, uncertainty will continue to undermine public confidence in the government’s environmental policy.
WHO AUTHORISED THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS?
One of the most consequential issues raised by the petition concerns the reported claim that the project enjoys government support.
If such assurances are being given, the public deserves to know who is providing them and what they mean in practical and legal terms.
Is the alleged support based on a valid statutory authorisation, an existing mining lease, an administrative decision or merely an informal representation?
Has any government institution formally authorised the proposed activities within the reserve?
If an approval exists, which institution issued it, under what legal authority was it granted, and does it remain valid following the repeal of L.I. 2462?
These are not peripheral questions. They go directly to the accountability of public institutions and the integrity of the country’s environmental governance system.
A FOREST RESERVE IS NOT AN ORDINARY MINING SITE
Forest reserves serve important ecological functions, including the protection of biodiversity, the maintenance of habitats and the preservation of environmental systems that support surrounding communities.
Mining activities, depending on their scale and methods, can cause land degradation, vegetation loss, habitat fragmentation and damage to water resources.
Where a proposed operation involves a protected forest reserve, the burden on public authorities to explain the applicable legal safeguards becomes especially important.
MAHAMA MUST PROVIDE CLARITY
GYDA’s appeal to President Mahama places the responsibility for political leadership squarely before the Presidency.
The President should direct the appropriate institutions to establish the legal and factual position surrounding Betterland Mining Company’s proposed activities.
Such an intervention should not presume wrongdoing by the company. It should ensure that the relevant authorities provide verifiable answers and that any necessary enforcement action is taken on the basis of evidence and law.
The public deserves to know whether the reported movement of heavy equipment and security personnel is connected to a formally approved mining project, whether operations have commenced, and what safeguards are in place to protect the reserve.
