Dismissing Atewa Forest’s case against the government

General news for Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Source: Ghana Times

2020-09-22

The Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice, Gloria Akuffo, has stated that the government only intends to use 1.9 percent of the Atewa Forest Range and not the entire range.

He said that the actual mining area would cover 14.05 square kilometers and therefore prospecting for bauxite in the area would not be dangerous to the forest and any species that live within it.

The Attorney General was responding to a group of environmentalists, climate change activists, individuals, civil society and non-governmental organizations who sued the government a few months ago over the decision to allow the Chinese to prospect for bauxite in the forest.

In the brief submitted by their attorney, Martin L. Kpebu of Global Trotters Legal, the plaintiffs stated that the government had already signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the People’s Republic of China to develop a bauxite industry in Ghana with Atewa Range. . The forest as one of the sources of bauxite.

They said that the government, acting through Ghana’s Integrated Aluminum Development Cooperation (GIADEC), entered the forest in May 2019, to explore for bauxite by drilling deep holes that cause damage to the forest it protects. the basin of three major rivers and several streams, which serve water to more than five million Ghanaians.

However, the Attorney General in his defense signed by Dorothy Afriyie-Ansah, Chief State’s Attorney, denied all allegations in the plaintiffs’ claim statement.

The plaintiffs had alleged that they brought the present action after several unsuccessful attempts to engage the government on why it should not touch the forest, as it was classified as a Globally Important Biodiversity Area (GSBA) and protected forest.

In his case, Ghana does not need to exploit the bauxite reserves in the Atewa mountain range forest because there are much richer bauxite reserves, according to the information available to the government, which the government has made available to the public.

The plaintiffs argue that open pit mining, the only way to extract Ghana’s bauxite, could result in loss of forest cover, loss of biodiversity, loss of access to clean water, accumulation of greenhouse gases, loss of services. improvement of the climate, loss of emissions. reduction services, loss of plants of medicinal / economic value and change in the tourist potential of the area.

The plaintiffs said that the government is conducting mining activities in the forest without mining rights and urged the court to compel the government to restore or pay the cost of damage caused as a result of reconnaissance, prospecting and clearing of roads in the forest.

But the Attorney General stated that the plaintiffs are simply crying, as many countries, such as Brazil and Australia, had successfully carried out mining activities in forest reserves, such as the Amazon Rainforest and Jarrah Rainforest, under well-supervised sustainable mining practices. .

The defendant said that the government to ensure the protection of the environment and species had established a standing committee comprising various agencies and regulatory commissions of mining and the environment to ensure optimal adherence to responsible and sustainable mining practices to protect the bodies of water and species within the territory. mining zone.

Among the reparations requested by the plaintiffs was a statement that the extraction of bauxite in the forest of the Atewa mountain range violates the right to life and dignity enshrined in articles 13 and 15 of the 1992 Constitution.

Furthermore, they want the court to find that the defendant violated the plaintiffs’ right to life and dignity by exploring and drilling deep holes in the ground at 53 different points in the Atewa Range forest, whose activities began in May 2019.

A statement that the defendant violated the 2006 Minerals and Mining Act (Law 703) by exploring and creating deep holes in the forest.

The plaintiffs want the court to oblige the government and its agents to declare the Atewa Range forest a protected area and take the necessary steps to protect the forest, in accordance with their constitutional obligations contained in article 36 (9) of the 1992 Constitution. .

An order to restrict the government, its assignees and agents, servants, workers, proxies and warranties, whatever they may be and however described, from undertaking mining and related activities in the Atewa Range Forest.

They urged the court to award damages for breach of Articles 13 and 15 of the 1992 Constitution and the cost, including attorneys’ fees for the plaintiffs against the government.