Bizarre incidents that can only take place in Ghana continue to occur to amuse, surprise or annoy us – depending on where we have decided to pitch our socio-political tent.

The ink had hardly dried on my narration of the goat- prohibition edict at Berekum when I read on the internet that there had been an actual court case about -- a decision by some of the 'king-makers' in a traditional area, to deny a left-handed man (known as “leftee”) a traditional position to which he aspired.

According to his opponents, local custom prevented left-handed persons from occupying the position that “leftee” sought to occupy.

You’ve guessed right – yes, acquisition of property was involved. For there’s hardly a "stool” or “skin” in Ghana which does not come with a good deal of property – usually land.

So the materialistic society we have become ensures that chieftaincy too should be the source of hundreds, or even thousands of court cases, some of which are argued based on alleged customs and traditions that mock common sense.

They put judges in a difficult position. For instance, if our customs and traditions can sometimes betray a belief in 'superstition", can the same not be said of some of the beliefs held dear by the religions imported here?

Indeed, bizarre as the belief that a “leftee” was bad news for the locality concerned and that his candidacy should be the subject of a court case was as nothing compared to a case which never made it to court (as far as I know) but which was quite sensationally canvassed on what, at the time was known as “radio trottoir” [rumour mill].

In that instance, a candidate for a big chiefly position (it was alleged) was not qualified to sit on the stool he sought, because he had circumcised his male organ as a youth (an abomination to the customs of the Akan area where he wanted to be a chief).

Radio Trottoir further reported that upon realising that he might lose the stool, the candidate travelled to Hollywood, (in the United States) where he had a new foreskin grafted to his male organ by an expert plastic surgeon!

So, when the “old women” of his royal family went to “inspect” the said organ (as the guy’s opponents had insisted should be done, in accordance with custom) they returned with a verdict that he wasn’t a circumcised man and that his foreskin was intact! I swear that whenever I am reminded of this story, I cannot help but wonder how the old ladies established the genuineness of the allegedly grafted foreskin. Did they -- oh all right. Let us speculate and leave it at that!

Now, were such an issue to arise in our current dispensation, would it be brought to the desk of the Minister of Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs; Mr Asamoah Boateng? How would he adjudicate the matter? I wouldn't be surprised if a policy decision became necessary, because, as the "Berekum goat-prohibition brouhaha illustrates, the conflict between our customs and traditions (on the one hand) and the constitutional niceties that underlie the "modern" legal system we have inherited from our erstwhile colonial masters (on the other) is only to be expected.

I would, however, advise Hon. Mr. Asamoah-Boateng to pay less attention to such abstruse legal controversies, as they sprout and vanish like mushrooms. What he should worry about is what his children and grand-children will think of him when they read, in the near future, that he could have made a valuable contribution to prevent the existential threat posed to our society – especially to our (then) unborn progeny – by galamsey.


Now, in theory, no galamsey operation can take place on any land, or in the vicinity of any water-body, body without the approval of the local farmers and the chief of the area.

But (of course) no chief would admit that he had given his approval to such a venture. The reason is that a noxious socio-political background is behind all galamsey operations.

Most people believe -- and with good reason -- that even if a particular chief were to be disinclined to offer such approval to galamsey operations, there is so much ‘SUBTERRANEAN’ money and political influence behind the galamsey operations that almost any chief would if approached, succumb to the combined financial and political pressure deployed to back the proposal.

Important party officials have been exposed by TV reporters, as and when their agents have made forays into forest reserves to mine illegally for gold.

Shocking scenes exist on YouTube in which uniformed soldiers (who are supposed only to take instructions from the government of the day) are seen assaulting reporters who had chanced upon the soldiers as they protected a galamsey operation on a very important river.

The president of the country had pledged to place his presidency on the line, rather than see galamsey continue. Yet there, in broad daylight, was evidence that galamsey had not only continued unabated but was being actually protected by soldiers who had been commandeered by a man who seemed to wield great influence in the ruling party.

The evidence showed clearly that a forest reserve had been ravaged by galamsey activities. A very big river was being actively destroyed, with changfans stationed on its surface. Part of the river's course had been dammed and diverted. This modus operandi operates on most of the life-giving rivers in Ghana, including Tano, Ankobra, Offin, Oti, Densu, Birem and [more recently] the Black Volta. It's as if a spell has been cast on the members of our Government, some of whom continue to prattle about how they mean well but that the galamseyers are using PROSPECTING LICENCES FOR MINING PURPOSES.

Others pretend that they do not know that and that so-called 'community mining' projects tend to get monopolised by local officials of the ruling party.

What is to be done? I think there is still hope, but to realise that hope, a new Local Government Bill, jointly drafted by the Ministry of Local Government and the Ministry of Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs, should be presented to Parliament, aimed at eliminating galamsey.

The Bill's initial objective would be to institutionalise THE REVIVAL OF THE ASAFO GROUP, OR ITS EQUIVALENT IN EVERY AREA IN GHANA THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE A CHIEF. The `Asafo is our indigenous way of safeguarding the public welfare, without resorting to vigilantism or anarchy. A good example of how a disciplined Asafo is organised can be seen from the Dentsefo and Tuafo Asafos that make the Winneba deer-catching festival such a spectacular occasion once a year.

The Chief and his Asafo shall have the power to EVICT ANY GALAMSEY OPERATION THAT THEY FIND IN THEIR AREA. Such evictions shall occur in consultation with the local police, where the police are found to be cooperative and can be trusted. Where the police are known to be so corrupt that they cannot be trusted with information regarding anti-galamsey operations, a report of why this is so would have to be sent to the Minister of the Interior, copied to the presidency, in explanation of why a galamsey operation had been evicted from the area, without the participation of the Police.

The Bill shall be debated in public by Parliament and during the period it is under consideration, the media shall be encouraged to publicise and discuss its provisions widely. The Government, I have no doubt, would be surprised at how the so-called party members with their ears to the ground would be shown up by such an active democratic discourse.

Through such public education and exposure of hypocrisy and double-dealing, a consensus will gradually emerge that will convey the message painfully to the galamsey kingpins that if they do not cease their activities forthwith, the entire country would be mobilised against them and that they could suffer terribly.

Above all, democracy would come to have an organic meaning for the bulk of our people, instead of serving the interests of only politicians and media practitioners.

Surely, it is time our people got to know that no power can resist the efforts of a populace that is determined to save itself from the machinations of a ruthless, selfish cabal of galamseyers that has subverted the people's votes and shown by deeds that it does not want the Nation to achieve the welfare, without which the people cannot survive.