Repealing Ghana’s Forest-Reserve Mining Regulations: Navigating the Path From L.I. 2462 to L.I. 2501 and Beyond
Ghana’s struggle against the scourge of illegal mining has entered a new chapter with the government’s bold decision to repeal both L.I. 2462 and its subsequent amendment, L.I. 2501. What began in 2019 as a targeted subsidiary instrument to regulate mining in forest reserves has evolved into a complex legal tapestry and now stands on the brink of total dismantlement. As officials proclaim that no “regulatory vacuum” will emerge from this sweeping repeal, some commentators warn that the fine print may leave critical gaps in environmental oversight and licensing.
L.I. 2462 was originally conceived to impose clear restrictions on mineral exploitation within forest reserves, carving out an exceptional presidential power to greenlight projects deemed in the “national interest.” Three years later, L.I. 2501 revised that framework: erasing the presidential override, reallocating licensing authority squarely to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minerals Commission, and beefing up conservation-first clauses. In theory, these amendments strengthened inter-agency coordination and tightened rehabilitation bonds, but they also generated fresh friction over institutional mandates and the EPA’s role.
Fast forward to today, and the government is preparing to strip away both regulatory layers entirely. Proponents argue that the primary statutes, the EPA Act, the Minerals and Mining Act, and the Forestry Commission Act already furnish comprehensive powers for permitting, enforcement, and remediation. According to the acting Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, repealing these subsidiary instruments simply excises redundant text without stripping any substantive authority from existing bodies. In this telling, the core legal machinery hums on, untouched.
Yet this confident narrative collides with warnings from civil-society observers. IMANI CPE’s CAGI of March 16–22, 2025, recalls the late Environment Minister’s caution that a full repeal would effectively hollow out the EPA’s jurisdiction over forest-reserve mining, justifying that the decision to amend is to save some ¢4 billion of investment of already licensed companies. With both L.I. 2462 and L.I. 2501 gone, the question becomes: which instrument compels site audits, enforces reclamation bonds, or adjudicates community restitution claims? Without explicit transitional clauses, would operators and regulators alike face a legal void?
To appreciate the stakes, consider the residual mandates of each agency. The EPA retains broad powers to demand environmental-impact assessments, levy pollution fines, and halt unauthorized activities under its founding legislation. The Minerals Commission can still issue mining permits under the Minerals and Mining Act, but only beyond forest reserves. Meanwhile, the Forestry Commission oversees general forest protection, yet lacks specialized mining-in-reserve protocols. Absent a dedicated rulebook, the coordination that L.I. 2501 sought to institutionalize risks unravelling.
This fragility is more than theoretical. Pending permit applications could languish unprocessed, existing licences may enter legal limbo, and enforcement athletes, from bonding to on-site inspections, could find themselves without a statutory playbook. Local communities poised to hold operators accountable might lose formal channels for affected-area monitoring and restitution, creating openings for renewed ‘galamsey’ incursions.
Similar missteps elsewhere underscore the dangers of repeal without replacement. Reflecting on Mali’s Law No. 2023-040 gold-royalty reforms and Burkina Faso’s 2016 mining-code overhaul, sweeping fiscal and oversight changes, designed to boost state and local revenue shares and tighten environmental and social standards, outpaced the necessary transitional decrees for permit renewals, transfers, and legacy agreements. In Mali, the absence of clear procedural guidance stranded projects at the Loulo–Gounkoto complex, leading Barrick Gold to initiate ICSID arbitration. Likewise, Burkina Faso’s rapid code revisions prompted investor warnings and treaty-based claims until emergency regulatory clarifications restored administrative certainty. Ghana’s policy architects have the chance to learn from these cautionary tales.
Repealing L.I. 2462 and L.I. 2501 offers the promise of streamlined governance and reinvigorated primary statutes. But without deliberate, phased replacement measures, Ghana risks leaving its forest reserves, and the soaring momentum against galamsey in regulatory limbo. The next steps will determine whether the repeal becomes a celebrated reset or a cautionary chapter in environmental policy gone awry.
