The National Director of A Rocha Ghana has accused the Ghana Integrated Aluminium Development Corporation (GIADEC) of destroying a portion of the Atewa Forest through exploratory bauxite mining.
Dr. Seth Appiah-Kubi alleged that the exploratory mining was illegal.
This is his testimony in a case filed by an environmental NGO and ten orders seeking to prevent the government from allowing any type of mining activity in the forest.
The trial began on Monday morning, with Dr. Appiah-Kubi as the first witness.
He told the judge GIADEC had previously stated publicly that the Atewa forest was one of three target areas for bauxite mining.
“They (GIADEC) went ahead to commission a reconnaissance and exploration activity in the forest which was carried out without due legal processes, destroying a part of the forest and these activities are the pre-events for the actual mining,” he stated.
However, Leona Johnson-Abassah, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice questioned the claims of illegal mining.
She described the allegation as serious and unsubstantiated by any document in the NGO’s case.
“This is a serious allegation that should be supported by evidence”.
Dr. Appiah Kubi, on the other hand, told the court that he could provide evidence of correspondence between A Rocha, the Environmental Protection Agency, and GIADEC demonstrating that the statutory requirement of an environmental impact assessment prior to such mining was not met.
The State Attorney, on the other hand, stated that if such a document existed, it should have been included among the documents filed in court.
As a result, she urged the court not to grant the request.
However, lawyers for A Rocha and the 10 others led by Martin Kpebu disagreed.
Mr. Kpebu stated that when witnesses are asked questions, they are free to provide relevant evidence to corroborate their answers.
The court was concerned, however, about whether the aforementioned documents were already in their possession when they filed the action against the state.
Mr. Kpebu stated that it was always in their possession, but they (plaintiffs) are not trained lawyers and would not have realized the importance of attaching it to their witnesses’ statements.
The court ruled that Dr. Appiah-Kubi can provide the court with the requested documents.
Mrs. Johnson-Abassah then questioned him about whether pre-mining activities and actual mining were the same.
According to Dr. Appiah-Kubi, they were not the same, but pre-mining was an important phase. The state Attorney General stated that not all pre-mining activities result in mining.
Dr. Appiah-Kubi responded that they always lead to mining unless the person doing the activity chooses not to.
“I call attention to the fact that these pre-mining activities do not always lead to mining for a variety of reasons.
“Depending on the findings of these activities such as low-grade ore body, deep-seated ore body, refusal by Minerals Commission to grant mining lease, even in situations where the lease is granted and there is no parliamentary approval, a lease can be revoked and no mining activity can be undertaken by the person,” the Attorney stated.
