sharing in governance of extractive industries
The common denominator of both situations appears to be the executive arm of government overstepping its powers....a very retrogressive tendency.
Thank you for sharing opinions on the developments.
I also don’t see any benefit /sound national security concern that may justify the restricting of MP´s from participating in the national scrutiny and endorsement of mineral contracts before they could become implementable.
The parliament scrutinizing and endorsing mineral policies and laws (the foundations of mineral contracts) should also scrutinize and endorse the mineral contracts in view of ensuring they are compliant to/or best outcomes of the mineral policies and laws in place.
Based on the mineral policies and laws in place, the government could developed standard mineral contracts for the parliament to scrutinize and endorse only ones before they could become implementable, and that, in future the parliament would only be scrutinizing and endorsing parts of the standard mineral contracts which have been renegotiated between the government and the miners.
This is а practical approach which would deny the corrupt in the government and mining industry the opportunity to corrupt the negotiation and endorsement of the mineral contracts for selfish interests, as well as enable the different views of all in the parliament to eliminate all flaws which generated from incompetence in government’s negotiating for the drafts of mineral contracts.
2. Here, too I also see some confusion of stakeholders in their understandings of the importance of having mineral explorers searching for mineral prospects in the grounds over which а new national State House is going to be erected, which is to enable it to be erected where harmful occurrences of minerals such as the radioactive don’t exist, as well as where it won’t hamper the development and exploitation of commercial mineral occurrences in the country.