Security in the gold mining sector: The Arimu Backdam...

state-managed law enforcement, not infrequently, provides us with not a great deal of reassurance. Leaving aside for the moment, the issue of security in the mining sector, it is widely felt the GPF is considerably behind the eight ball across the wider law enforcement spectrum.

When one looks at the frequency with which goldrelated robberies occur in the course of the movement of consignments of the precious metal from their source to their various coastal destinations, over vast swathes of vulnerable territory, it is clear that the prevailing circumstances under which the movement of gold is effected is unsustainable. The question that arises here is whether the ‘extent’ of the security matches the value of the goods being transported. The answer, in this instance, unquestionably, is no. The second consideration has to do with issues relating to the ‘secrecy/confidentiality’ and discretion that are applied when activities relating to the movement of gold across ‘risky’ territory are taking place. Demanding securityrelated assignments like the movement of gold over extensive and ‘risky’ terrain ought, surely, to be attended by strict security protocols that equip those arrangements to respond competently and, hopefully, effectively, to attacks by brigands. Here we are talking about security details that might include some level of involvement by the Guyana Police Force and here we believe that it is entirely reasonable to ask the miners to meet the costs associated with such security. Confidentiality, too, is a major consideration.

Here one might add that given the high risk associated with exercises that are attended by a considerable level of likely danger, the movement of gold under thorough ‘security’ procedures that do not dwell within some officially approved security framework (as appears to be the case at this time) should be outlawed. The fact of the matter is that there are instances in which activities to do with gold mining do not fall within the purview of state oversight. In a general sense, official control/jurisdiction over aspects of the operational behaviour of the sector is tenuous insofar as law enforcement is concerned. It is widely known, for example, that considerations like gold declaration are, to say the least, matters of particular concern. This, despite what we know have been attempts to conceal such information from public view. Distance and accessibility, we are also told, impact negatively on aspects of official oversight of the sector.

The killing of the two miners and the losses to their respective families ought, surely, to be sufficient, to now cause the authorities, in collaboration with the miners, to contemplate and thereafter move with haste to implement a significantly upgraded security regimen for the movement of gold from the respective mining sights to their various destinations. The arrangement for safe movement of gold from interior locations to the requisite destinations in the capital should be an issue to be addressed by the relevant state security institutions and the body representing the miners. There is no good reason why such discourses should not begin immediately.