While public frustration mounts over illegal small-scale mining, IMANI’s Criticality Analysis of Governance and Economic Issues cautions against an uncritical rush toward declaring a state of emergency.
The think tank acknowledges the scale of the crisis but warns that extraordinary powers may create more risks than solutions if not properly sequenced.
According to IMANI, emergency powers are blunt instruments that often weaken accountability mechanisms and infringe on civil liberties.
They may yield quick security gains, equipment seizures, forced shutdowns, and restricted movement in high-risk zones, but these victories can prove unsustainable.
“Short-term surges risk collapsing into long-term setbacks if prosecutions are not pursued in civilian courts or if communities reliant on small-scale mining are alienated by militarised crackdowns,” the analysis stresses.
The Presidency, for its part, has indicated it prefers to exhaust conventional measures first.
Current initiatives include a permit-tracking regime for heavy machinery, tighter chemical use prohibitions, and stronger community development agreements.
IMANI views these reforms as critical building blocks that should not be overshadowed by a purely security-driven emergency.
Instead, IMANI advocates a hybrid approach: limited, time-bound emergency interventions in the most devastated zones combined with fast-tracked reforms that remove corrupt licences, strengthen oversight, and create alternative livelihoods.
Crucially, any emergency must be paired with clear KPIs, judicial oversight of prosecutions, and a transparent exit plan that embeds environmental restoration and community compensation.
For IMANI, the galamsey debate is not about choosing between action and inaction.
It is about sequencing, balancing the urgency to protect rivers and farms against the need to safeguard rights and build durable governance systems.
Without this balance, emergency powers could entrench the very failures they aim to resolve.
