Africa Policy Lens (APL) has urged the government to amend Section 25 of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Act. The policy think tank stated that the current law could create conflicts among state institutions. This could also weaken governance structures and expose the country to financial risks.
APL’s concerns arose after GoldBod signed an agreement with the Forestry Commission and the Ghana Armed Forces. This agreement aims to restore parts of the Tano Nimiri Forest Reserve. Illegal mining has severely damaged this reserve. The reclamation project carries a value of GHS 36.35 million. It seeks to rehabilitate 50 hectares of land affected by years of illegal mining operations.
The policy think tank believes these activities go beyond GoldBod’s primary responsibilities. Existing institutions, like the Minerals Commission and Forestry Commission, already possess the legal authority and technical expertise for such reclamation work. This situation contributes to broader concerns about institutional mandates within Ghana's natural resource management sector. GoldBod was established to streamline operations related to gold, but its expanding role now raises questions about its original purpose and potential overlaps with other agencies.
"Reclamation of degraded mine sites has been undertaken by the Minerals Commission, NAELP, Forestry Commission and GLRSSMP, under the lead of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, with mandates," an APL statement noted on June 22. APL argued that GoldBod’s participation could result in overlapping responsibilities. This also risks duplicating work within the country’s natural resource management sector. They stressed that Section 3(g) of the Act might be used as a justification. However, the breadth of these provisions creates significant risks of mandate duplication and institutional overlap.
APL also highlighted GoldBod’s plans to collaborate with the Ghana Geological Survey Authority (GGSA) and the Minerals Commission. These collaborations involve geological exploration projects in artisanal and small-scale mining areas. A Right to Information response from the Minerals Commission, dated May 18, 2026, indicated how GoldBod utilizes existing agencies. The response stated the Commission "only provides the Ghana Geological Survey Authority (GGSA) with information on blocked out areas to enable the authorities’ geological investigations initiatives on behalf of the Ghana Gold Board."
This arrangement, according to APL, raises concerns about the responsibilities of institutions that already have direct legal authority over mining activities. APL warned that GoldBod’s continued participation in upstream mining projects could undermine the authority of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. It could also weaken agencies such as the Minerals Commission and the Forestry Commission. This could blur lines of accountability and create parallel governance systems within the mining sector. The policy think tank also expressed concerns about the management of funds allocated under Section 25 of the GoldBod Act.
To address these issues, APL proposed an amendment to the law. The amendment suggests: "The funds earmarked under section 25(1) shall be transferred to the relevant public institutions, agencies and programmes established under law and mandated to support the activities of small-scale miners in accordance with section 25(2)." This means the GoldBod Board of Directors should approve funding without directly administering the funds. If the Board controls both approval and implementation, it gains excessive influence over activities outside its core mandate. APL has called for an immediate review of Section 25(3). It insists that GoldBod should not have the power to issue guidelines on how funds for upstream small-scale mining activities are allocated, disbursed, or used. Decision-makers must ensure clear distinctions in roles to maintain institutional integrity and efficiency. Any changes will likely be closely watched by those in the mining sector and relevant government bodies.