Deputy Interior Minister Ebenezer Terlarbi has justified the government’s strategy of deporting foreign nationals involved in illegal mining activities, locally referred to as galamsey, rather than pursuing lengthy prosecutions.
Speaking on JoyNews on Tuesday, April 8, Terlarbi acknowledged that while the policy has faced criticism, it remains the most practical option given the “realities on the ground.”
He pointed to persistent delays in the judicial system, overcrowded prison facilities, and the complex logistics of managing large-scale arrests of foreign miners as key factors influencing the decision.
He explained, “we know when it comes to litigation in this country — dealing with our courts — it can sometimes be very frustrating. We have instances where people are arrested, and we prefer repatriating them rather than taking them through our courts.”
Terlarbi further noted that many foreign nationals, upon arrest, immediately demand trials, engage lawyers, and exploit legal technicalities, which tend to drag cases on for months or years.
“They have lawyers, which is their right, and they need to be proven guilty by our courts,” he emphasized, underscoring the difficulty of swiftly concluding such cases through normal judicial processes.
The government, he said, is seeking to balance the enforcement of mining laws with the practical challenges of maintaining an already overburdened legal and correctional system.
Meanwhile, security analyst Professor Kwasi Aning has criticised government’s new directive to arrest and deport foreign nationals involved in illegal mining without prosecuting them.
He warned that such a policy will embolden even more dangerous criminals and deepen public distrust in Ghana’s justice system.
An estimated 11,000 foreign children and women remain in the refugee camps of Roj and al-Hol in northeastern Syria.
The Australian government has returned four Australian women and their 13 children from a Syrian refugee camp to the state of New South Wales, according to home affairs minister Clare O’Neil.
The repatriation is part of a plan to bring back from Syria dozens of Australian women and children who are relatives of dead or imprisoned ISIL (ISIS) fighters and have been held at the al-Hol and Roj detention camps in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Syria for several years.
Australia first repatriated eight children and grandchildren of two dead ISIL fighters from a Syrian refugee camp in 2019 but has held off repatriating any others until now.
“The decision to repatriate these women and their children were informed by individual assessments following detailed work by national security agencies,” O’Neil said in a statement on Saturday.
The women and children left the Roj refugee camp in northern Syria on Thursday afternoon and crossed the border into Iraq to board a flight home, the Sydney Morning Herald and state broadcaster ABC reported on Friday.
O’Neil said at all times the focus has been on the safety and security of “all Australians” as well as those involved in the repatriation, with the government having “carefully considered the range of security, community and welfare factors in making the decision to repatriate”.
The repatriation followed similar moves by the United States, Italy, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom, and Canada, O’Neil said.
She said allegations of illegal activity would continue to be investigated by state and federal law enforcement authorities.
“Any identified offences may lead to law enforcement action being taken,” O’Neil said, adding that New South Wales was providing “extensive support services” to assist the group to reintegrate into Australia.
In a statement on Saturday attributed to the repatriated women, the group said they were “deeply thankful” to be back in Australia and they expressed regret for the “troubles and hurt” caused by their actions, particularly to their families.
Asking for privacy and space to reconnect with their loved ones, the women expressed hope that “all Australian children and their mothers will soon be repatriated from the camps in Syria”.
Human Rights Watch researcher Sophie McNeill said the repatriation was a “long overdue step”.
“For years, the Australian government has abandoned its nationals to horrific conditions in locked camps in northeast Syria,” McNeill said.
“Australia can play a leadership role in counterterrorism through these orderly repatriations of its nationals, most of them children who never chose to live under ISIS,” she said.
In a statement congratulating Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for his “strong leadership” on the repatriation plan, the humanitarian organisation Save the Children said that an estimated 11,000 foreign children and women remain in the Roj and al-Hol camps.
On September 26, EOCO swooped on a location in Accra where the 21 Nigerians were picked up.
The victims who are under the age of 20 years are said to have been brought to Accra by some human traffickers to be trained in cyber fraud activities.
Speaking to journalists, the Deputy Executive Director of EOCO in Charge of Operations, Nana Antwi said seven of the human trafficking suspects were also picked up.
“In conjunction with an NGO and the Nigerian High Commission, efforts have been made to send the 17 victims to their home country, Nigeria.”
“After the screening, it came up that seven persons were actually not victims but managers of the victims,” he added.
The seven were arraigned on October 7 and remanded pending further investigations.
Three weeks have passed since security personnel once again detained Chinese national Aisha Huang at her Ahodwo home in Kumasi.
Aisha was first arrested in May 2017, and was arraigned, as well as charged with undertaking illegal small-scale mining.
The Chinese national who was identified as one of the bigwigs in the illegal mining trade was allegedly “deported” to China without being prosecuted in 2018.
However, Aisha Huang’s return to the country has sparked much debate, with several contradictory accounts as to whether she was deported or not.
Some argue that the decision to first not prosecute her in 2018 is in breach of Ghana’s Mineral and Mining Act, 2006.
The Mineral and Mining Act, 2006 states that a non-Ghanaian who illegally mines or abets illegal mining attracts a large fine and imprisonment of between 20 and 25 years, and shall be deported after serving the sentence.
But in explaining the government’s decision, the then Senior Minister, Yaw Osafo-Maafo, stated that the 1,641 Chinese nationals arrested and repatriated over ‘galamsey’ since 2009 government decided that Aisha
Huang be deported without imprisonment, to maintain a good relationship with China.
At a town hall meeting in the US in April 2019, he said, “We have a very good relationship with China.
Today, the main company that is helping develop the infrastructure system in Ghana is Sinohydro. It is a Chinese company. It is the one that is going to help process our bauxite and provide about two billion dollars to us… So when there are these kinds of arrangements, there are other things behind the scenes.”
“Putting that lady (Aisha Huang) in jail in Ghana is not going to solve your economic problems. It is not going to make you or me happy, that’s not important, the most important thing is that she has been deported out of Ghana.”
President Akufo-Addoaddressing a forum at Princeton University during his visit to the US in 2019, stated emphatically that Aisha Huang’s deportation was a “mistake”.
The two statements by the two government officials suggest that Aisha Huang was deported in 2018.
However, some state officials have made a quick U-turn, proposing that Aisha Huang was repatriated rather than deported as earlier reported.
According to the Minister of Information, Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah, the galamsey kingpin was repatriated from Ghana in 2018.
He went on to say that a repatriation order was issued to this effect and that Aisha was put on a flight and exited Ghana.
The President, who has been championing Ghana’s fight against illegal mining, is now claiming that he is in doubt about whether Aisha Huang was deported from Ghana in 2018 or not.
“I’m not still sure whether she was in fact deported. Or whether she fled the country the first time and has now come back. There still seems to be some uncertainty about it,” he said while speaking on a Ho-based radio station, as part of his tour of the Volta Region on Monday, September 12, 2022.
According to the prosecutors in the galamsey case against the kingpin, Aisha Huang sneaked out of the country in 2017 to avoid prosecution.
Nevertheless, a report by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) issued a notice of revocation of permit and repatriation dated December 19, 2018, addressed to En Huang, the name used by Aisha Huang.
The notice was signed by the Comptroller-General, Kwame Asuah Takyi.
There is also a boarding pass in the name of En Huang on Ethiopian Airlines Flight No. ET 920 from Accra to Addis Ababa, dated December 19, 2018.
She was reportedly placed at seat no. 32F and used gate C7 to board and flew economy.
First and foremost, what is repatriation and deportation? Deportation is the involuntary return of a person to their home country, usually due to a violation of the law, illegal entry, or overstaying of their visa.
On the other hand, repatriation is the process of bringing or sending someone back to their home country in a desirable situation, typically a prisoner of war, refugee, or hostage.
Unlike deportation, repatriation is voluntary.
It is, therefore, surprising to say that Aisha Huang, who was charged with three counts of undertaking small-scale mining operations, contrary to Section 99 (1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, Government makes a U-turn on Aisha Huang’s deportation 2006 (Act 703); providing mining support services without valid registration with the Minerals Commission, contrary to the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), and the illegal employment of foreign nationals, contrary to the Immigration Act, 2000 (Act 573), was rather repatriated and not deported.
The Ghanaian people have questioned the government’s commitment and competence in combating illegal mining in the country as a result of contradictory statements by state officials.
So far, the charges levelled against her exclude that of an immigrant breaching the country’s laws on deportation/repatriation.
Per the Immigration Act, 2000 section 35; a person who enters Ghana when a deportation order made against him or her is in force commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years and may be deported without any further deportation order being made.
Also, in section 8 of the Immigration Act, an immigration officer may arrest a prohibited immigrant without a warrant and effect his repatriation or arraign him before a court for an offence under subsection (2).
A person who fails to comply with a directive given under subsection (5) to remove a prohibited immigrant commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five million cedis or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding twelve months, or to both.
Charges against Aisha Huang after her second arrest Aisha Huang was charged with: undertaking small-scale mining,operations contrary to the Minerals Act, providing mining support without service without valid registration, illegal employment of foreign nationals, mining without a licence, engaging in the sale and purchase of minerals without a valid licence.
Aisha Huang, according to reports, is likely to spend two years in prison if proven guilty of the said offences.
