I. ​Introduction:

Despite a burgeoning legal framework, Ghana’s regulatory and institutional efforts have struggled to prevent pollution, ensure accountability, or foster compliance. Illegal mining continues to cause irreparable damage to river systems such as the Pra, Ankobra, and Birim. The current system is not equipped to handle the complexity of these disputes, which span land use, environmental impact, resource allocation, and community rights. This essay argues that arbitration, particularly when adapted for ecological conflicts, can play a crucial role in addressing these failures.

​

The intersection of law and sustainability is highly regarded, particularly in light of environmental crisis driven by illegal mining, or galamsey, which continues to wreak havoc on Ghana’s freshwater ecosystems. The gold rush has also been fueled by the fact that the global price of gold has risen to new heights and is expected to continue going up. According to a Wilson Centre Report, 60% of Ghana’s fresh water sources are contaminated by toxins and chemicals from illegal gold mining. 

​

This paper espouses that arbitration, when adapted to environmental contexts and supported by robust statutory and policy reform, can offer a viable alternative to litigation in resolving complex, multi-stakeholder disputes related to water pollution and land use. Integrating insights from the Elisabeth Haub School of Law’s ADR Environmental Dispute Resolution curriculum, Land Use Law Center, and Sustainable Business Law Hub, the paper proposes the institutionalization of environmental arbitration in Ghana through legislative amendments, expert panels, and participatory mechanisms. 

​

Several countries including New Zealand, Canada & Bangladesh have granted legal personhood to water bodies through national legislations, enabling them to be represented in court and have their rights protected. If a statute designates certain rivers or lakes as legal persons, it can vest representation in a governing board composed of chiefs, community members, regulators, and technical experts. This board then holds standing to sue or to enter into binding agreements with operators. Once the board signs a concession, performance agreement, or sustainability compact that contains an arbitration clause, disputes about those contractual obligations become arbitrable.

​

Turning water bodies into juristic persons, with defined stakeholder representation, can create a direct pathway for civil accountability, including arbitration of consensual obligations. It aligns with polluter pays because the water body, as a rights-bearing entity, becomes the claimant seeking remediation, compensation, and preventive measures.

 

II. Legal and Environmental Context in Ghana

Ghana’s legal system includes several environmental protection statutes: the Environmental Protection Act 2025 (Act 1124), the Water Resources Commission Act (Act 522 of 1996), and the National Water Policy. However, despite this legislative apparatus, implementation and enforcement have proven elusive. Scholars such as Frimpong et al. (2021) highlight weak institutional coordination, inadequate funding, and political interference as central causes of Ghana’s enforcement deficit. The proliferation of galamsey operations often protected by local elites or political patrons undermines the rule of law and marginalizes vulnerable communities.

Additionally, the country’s buffer zone policy remains without legislative backing, rendering it ineffective against encroachments on riverbanks. According to Owusu et al. (2016), pollution from illegal mining contributes to high turbidity, mercury contamination, and biodiversity loss. Enforcement actions, when taken, are sporadic and inconsistent, often lacking due process or transparency.

In such a fragmented enforcement environment, there is an urgent need for a dispute resolution framework that is not only legally robust but also procedurally accessible and adaptable. Arbitration, when appropriately designed, can fill this void.

​

III. Arbitration as a Mechanism for Environmental Dispute Resolution

Environmental disputes arising from illegal mining in Ghana involve a complex constellation of stakeholders, including state regulatory agencies, traditional authorities, multinational mining companies, small-scale miners, environmental organisations, and affected local communities. These disputes rarely present straightforward questions of liability; rather, they require the careful reconciliation of competing interests in environmental protection, economic development, natural resource governance, and community livelihoods. Conventional litigation, while indispensable in enforcing environmental laws, is often ill-suited to addressing the multi-dimensional and relationship-based nature of such disputes.

​

Arbitration presents a complementary mechanism capable of addressing many of these challenges. Its procedural flexibility enables parties to design processes that respond to the technical and contextual demands of environmental disputes, including the appointment of arbitrators with scientific or environmental expertise, the conduct of site inspections, and the incorporation of culturally appropriate procedures where community interests are implicated. Arbitral proceedings are also well-equipped to accommodate complex technical evidence, such as environmental impact assessments, hydrological and geological reports, biodiversity studies, and expert testimony on remediation measures. Furthermore, because arbitration is fundamentally consensual, it provides greater scope for negotiated outcomes that may include environmental restoration plans, compliance monitoring mechanisms, phased remediation programmes, compensation arrangements, and other forward-looking obligations tailored to the circumstances of the dispute (Richardson & Wood, 2006).

​

Despite these advantages, Ghana's legislative framework does not presently permit environmental disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798), while providing a comprehensive framework for the arbitration of commercial and civil disputes, expressly excludes matters relating to the environment from its scope of arbitrability. Consequently, disputes concerning environmental protection, pollution, and natural resource management remain within the exclusive domain of statutory and judicial enforcement mechanisms.

​

To harness the benefits of arbitration without undermining the State's regulatory authority, targeted legislative reform is required. Such reform should create a carefully circumscribed framework permitting arbitration only in respect of contractual environmental obligations voluntarily assumed by parties, while preserving the exclusive jurisdiction of public authorities over statutory enforcement, criminal liability, and regulatory compliance.

​

A. Positioning within the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act

A targeted amendment to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act should permit the arbitration of environmental obligations arising exclusively from environmental agreements approved or recognised by a designated public authority or a governing board as described in the scenario in the preamble above. Such agreements may include commitments relating to environmental remediation, rehabilitation, biodiversity conservation, community environmental management, or post-mining restoration.

Importantly, the amendment should make clear that arbitration would not extend to questions of statutory compliance, environmental offences, licensing decisions, or the exercise of regulatory discretion. Those matters would remain exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts and the relevant regulatory agencies. This approach preserves the established distinction between private dispute resolution and the exercise of sovereign regulatory authority while providing an efficient mechanism for enforcing negotiated environmental commitments.

​

B. Alignment with the Environmental Protection Authority Act

The proposed framework should operate consistently with the Environmental Protection Act and should not diminish the Agency's statutory mandate. The Environmental Protection Authority would continue to exercise its core functions, including environmental impact assessment, compliance monitoring, investigations, enforcement actions, administrative sanctions, and prosecution of environmental violations.

Arbitration would operate only as a complementary mechanism for resolving disputes arising from contractual environmental commitments voluntarily undertaken by parties. The EPA's authority to investigate environmental breaches, impose statutory sanctions, issue compliance directives, or revoke permits would remain unaffected. In this manner, contractual enforcement through arbitration would reinforce rather than replace existing regulatory oversight.

​

C. Preserving State Regulatory Oversight

Any legislative reform must unequivocally preserve the State's exclusive authority over environmental governance. Criminal liability, administrative penalties, licensing decisions, environmental permitting, and regulatory enforcement should remain beyond the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals. Arbitration should instead be confined to determining the contractual consequences of agreed environmental obligations, including questions of remediation, compensation, environmental restoration, cost allocation, and operational reforms.

Such a model maintains the constitutional balance between private dispute resolution and public regulation. It recognises that while environmental protection is fundamentally a public law concern, certain aspects of environmental governance—particularly those involving voluntarily assumed contractual obligations may be resolved more efficiently through arbitration without compromising the State's supervisory role.

​

IV. Environmental Justice, Customary Law, and Sustainable Development Goals

Arbitration must also be situated within the broader context of climate justice and Sustainable Development Goal 6: clean water and sanitation for all. As Bandopadhyay (2014) and Arsenault et al. (2018) note, indigenous and customary systems often contain rich norms for water stewardship. In Ghana, customary taboos and traditional land-use norms historically protected riverine zones. These should not be sidelined but incorporated into modern dispute resolution frameworks.

An arbitration system that blends formal legal norms with customary practices could help Ghana operationalize the principle of subsidiarity, resolving disputes at the most immediate level possible. Moreover, integrating arbitration into Ghana’s climate adaptation strategy could support long-term ecological resilience.

 

​

Environmental arbitration is not a silver bullet. However, it offers a pragmatic, inclusive, and forward-thinking mechanism for addressing Ghana’s environmental challenges, especially those related to water degradation from illegal mining. By adapting global best practices to local realities, Ghana can transform its dispute resolution system into a tool for sustainability and justice.

The duty must be framed as obligations owed to the water body as a legal entity. This allows a tribunal to enforce performance bonds, order restitution, and require operational changes, all within a private law framework. Such claims do not replace public enforcement, they simply ensure that ‘polluter pays’ is triggered through a predictable, commercially oriented channel.

​

The ongoing Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi), Akonta Mining Company Ltd., and Another (the Samreboi concession case) exemplifies Ghana's prevailing enforcement approach to illegal mining. The accused persons face charges including the assignment of mineral rights without the prior written approval of the Minister, contrary to sections 14(1) and 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended, as well as facilitating unlicensed mining operations. These proceedings are criminal in nature and are directed towards enforcing statutory obligations and imposing sanctions for violations of Ghana's mining laws.

​

While criminal prosecutions remain indispensable for deterrence, accountability, and the protection of the public interest, they are not designed to facilitate negotiated environmental remediation, restoration planning, or the implementation of long-term compliance measures between affected stakeholders. The case therefore illustrates the predominance of regulatory and punitive mechanisms within Ghana's environmental governance framework, with little scope for consensual dispute resolution.

​

This article does not advocate the arbitration of criminal liability, regulatory enforcement, licensing decisions, or statutory compliance, all of which must remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State. Rather, it argues for a narrowly circumscribed legislative framework that would permit arbitration of contractual environmental obligations voluntarily assumed by mining operators, including remediation agreements, environmental restoration commitments, rehabilitation obligations, and community compensation arrangements. Such a framework would operate alongside existing regulatory and criminal enforcement mechanisms, providing a complementary avenue for resolving disputes while preserving the supervisory and enforcement powers of the State.
 

In practical terms, you can use polluter pays to make certain obligations arbitral, provided two conditions are met. The obligation is expressed in a contract to which the polluter and the water body are parties, and the statute makes clear that the water body has legal personality and authority to enter those agreements. 

​

A standard arbitration clause in a concession may look like this: “Any dispute arising solely from the environmental obligations contained in this agreement shall be referred to arbitration seated in Accra under the designated rules. The tribunal shall consist of three members, including one accredited technical specialist. The tribunal shall have authority to order remedial steps, quantify damages, and require release of monies from the performance bond. This process shall not affect any statutory power of a regulator to investigate or sanction noncompliance.”

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Agyenim, J. B., & Gupta, J. (2010). The Evolution of Ghana’s Water Law and Policy. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 19(3), 339 350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467 9388.2010.00687.x

Arsenault, R., Diver, S., McGregor, D., Witham, A., & Bourassa, C. (2018). Shifting the Framework of Canadian Water Governance through Indigenous Research Methods: Acknowledging the Past with an Eye on the Future. Water, 10(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010049

Bandopadhyay, S. (2014). Another History of Knowledge and Decision In Precautionary Approaches To Sustainability. Fordham Environmental Law Review, 25, 1 46.

Frimpong, J., et al. (2021). A Review of the Design and Implementation of Ghana’s National Water Policy (2007). Water Policy, 23(5), 1170 1185. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2021.042

Makanda, K., Nzama, S., & Kanyerere, T. (2022). Assessing the Role of Water Resources Protection Practice for Sustainable Water Resources Management: A Review. Water, 14(19), 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14193153

Owusu, P. A., Asumadu Sarkodie, S., & Ameyo, P. (2016). A Review of Ghana’s Water Resource Management and the Future Prospect. Cogent Engineering, 3(1), 1164275. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1164275

Richardson, B. J., & Wood, S. (Eds.). (2006). Environmental Law for Sustainability. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2023). UN World Water Development Report 2023: Partnerships and Cooperation for Water. UNESCO Publishing.