The National Director of A Rocha Ghana has accused the Ghana Integrated Aluminium Development Corporation (GIADEC) of destroying a part of the Atewa Forest through exploratory bauxite mining.

Dr Seth Appiah-Kubi alleged that the exploratory mining took place contrary to the law.

This is his testimony in a case filed by the environmental Non-Governmental Organisation and 10 orders seeking to restrain government from allowing any form of mining activities in the Forest.

The case commenced on Monday morning with Dr Appiah-Kubi as the first witness.

He told the court GIADEC had earlier announced publicly that the Atewa forest was one of three targeted areas it intended to undertake bauxite mining.

“They (GIADEC) went ahead to commission a reconnaissance and exploration activity in the forest which was carried out without due legal processes, destroying a part of the forest and these activities are the pre-events for the actual mining,” he stated.

An Attorney at the office of Attorney General and Minister of Justice Leona Johnson-Abassah, however, questioned the claims of unlawful mining.

She described the allegation as a serious one not supported by any document in the case filed by the NGO.

“This is a serious allegation that should be supported by evidence”.

Dr Appiah Kubi however told the court he could provide evidence of correspondence between A Rocha, the Environmental Protection Agency and GIADEC showing that the statutory requirement of an environmental impact assessment before such mining takes place was not complied with.

The State Attorney however said if such a document existed it should have been added to the documents filed in the court.

She, therefore, urged the court not to grant the request.

Lawyers for A Rocha and the 10 others led by Martin Kpebu, however, disagreed.

Mr. Kpebu said it was settled practice that when questions are asked of witnesses, they are at liberty to supply relevant evidence to corroborate their answer.

The court was however concerned about whether the said documents was already in their possession prior to filing the action against the state.

Mr Kpebu indicated that it was always in their possession but they (plaintiffs) are not trained lawyers to have known the need to attach this to their witness’ statements.

The court ruled that Dr Appiah-Kubi can provide the said documents to the court.

Mrs Johnson-Abassah then questioned him on whether pre-mining activities were the same as actual mining.

Dr. Appiah-Kubi stated that they were not the same but pre-mining was an important phase. The state Attorney pointed out that not all pre-mining activities lead to mining.

Dr. Appiah-Kubi responded that they always lead to mining unless the person undertaking the activity opts not to do so.

“I am putting it to the witness that these pre-mining activities do not always end up in mining for various reasons.

“Depending on the findings of these activities such as low grade ore body, deep-seated ore body, refusal by Minerals Commission to grant mining lease, even in situations where the lease is granted and there is no parliamentary approval, a lease can be revoked and no mining activity can be undertaken by the person,” the Attorney stated.

Dr. Appiah-Kubi agreed with the statement.