LAUSR

In their article ‘Governing access to gold in Ghana: in-depth geopolitics on mining concessions’, Luning and Pijpers (2017) discuss important political issues around mining in Ghana. Using the companies Keegan and Newmont as units of analysis, and drawing on insights from geography and anthropology, the authors call for an alternative approach to geopolitical issues in mining. They point out that mining concessions are sites of governance that involve economic players – that is, mining companies and artisanal miners/galamsey – and political authorities positioned at national as well as local scales (ibid.: 761). Of greater interest, the authors argue, is the kind of relationship that has developed between established exploration or mining companies and galamsey operators. The authors point out that the maintenance of such a relationship, though uneasy, is necessary in ensuring continuous mining in the areas where these mining companies are located. This commentary focuses on an aspect of the article that deals with the issue of galamsey. Drawing on historical events, I discuss some key characteristics of artisanal mining and miners and the issue of hybrid governance, involving traditional and modern authorities in mining in Ghana.