The Attorney-General and the Aisha Huang sentence

Of course, the Attorney-Gen­eral is entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the sentence delivered at the Accra High Court, jailing Aisha Huang (the Chinese “galamsey queenpin”) on 4 December 2023.

Whilst announcing his intention to appeal, the Attorney-General criticised members of the public, who (he said) had made “various misleading comments” in reaction to the 4 December judgment.

It is a pity that the Attorney General did not cite any examples of the “misleading comments” made by members of the public. However, It must be pointed

out that the nature of the case, {and even more important) the previous behaviour of the office of the Attorney-General in relation to it should have

prepared him for such comments as he now complains of.

In the first place, a “nolle prosequi” request by a prosecuting authority stopping a prosecution in its tracks, is a relatively unusual procedure in Ghana. Yet not only did the Attorney-General request and obtain a nolle prosequi in favour of Aisha Huang but also, but he also failed to fully take the Ghanaian public into his confidence, with regard to the the reasons that made him stop the prosecution.

Next came the sensational news that Aisha Huang had, rather than showing gratitude for the leniency shown by the Ghana Government in withdrawing its prosecution of Aishan Huang, disregarded the Ghana Government’s deportation order against her and secretly returned to Ghana. The public would have

concluded that she had returned to engage in galamsey once again (since investment in galamsey is, necessarily, a “continuing” (albeit illegal) enterprise.

Perhaps the embarrassment that the whole Aisha Huang business has caused our Government will persuade our authorities,– going forward– to train our law enforcement agencies more robustly in the detection and prosecution of crimes, the commitment of which demands highly organised and, sophisticated “backup” services.

We have seen, for instance, that arresting and prosecuting those who dig for gold at galamsey sites, while leaving their employers untouched, cannot advance the struggle against galamsey. What about training Government agents in methods of detecting financial crimes (such as money laundering)? The USA, some countries in Latin America, and those areas in Italy that have succeeded in fighting the Mafia (for instance) can teach us how to “follow the money”.

One wonders, specifically, whether when Aisha Huang returned to Ghana, secret surveillance methods were used to see what she was up to. If that had been done, wouldn’t evidence have been gathered to lead us to her ‘post-return’ galamsey activities?

Meanwhile, here is the record of Aisha Huang’s dalliances in Ghana, as reported by the Attorney-General, in his statement:

QUOTE: “In 2017, Aisha Huang was charged with illegal mining offences committed

between 2015 and May 2017….. On 19th December 2018, the Attorney-General entered nolle prosequi and terminated the trial.

The Comptroller-General of Ghana Immigration Service revoked her permit to

remain in Ghana indefinitely and ordered her immediate repatriation to China…

“Subsequently, Aisha Huang was found to have re-entered Ghana, contrary to the

order of the Comptroller-General.

She was arrested again on 2nd September 2022, in Kumasi. “Immediately, the Attorney-General directed the prosecution of Aisha Huang for all past and present offences committed by her. After a trial in which the prosecution

called 11 witnesses, and the accused person gave evidence in her defence, the High Court presided over by Her Ladyship Justice Lydia Osei-Marfo, on

4th December 2023, convicted the accused of all offences and sentenced her to

various terms in prison to run concurrently.

Counts one and two – four (4) years and six (6) months in prison (in hard labour) as well as a fine of three thousand (3000) penalty units;

Count three – twelve (12) months in prison (in hard labour);

Count four – one thousand (1000) penalty units or in default, serve a term of three (3) years imprisonment. “The learned judge considered the fact that the offences of undertaking a mining operation without a licence and facilitating the participation of persons engaged in a mining operation without a licence (with which the accused was charged) were committed between February 2015 and May 2017, at a time that the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995), which imposes a punishment of a minimum of twenty (20) years in prison for a non-Ghanaian, together with a fine of between one hundred thousand penalty units and three hundred and fifty thousand penalty units, had not been passed.

“In the view of the trial judge, Article 19(6) of the Constitution prohibits a penalty from being imposed for a criminal offence, that is more severe in degree … [than could have been imposed for the same offence, by earlier legislation, such as the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 900), which mandated a fine of not more than three thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than five years or to both.

“The learned judge thus, taking account of the fact that the accused had already

spent more than one year in custody, and sentenced her in the manner stated earlier.