The Minerals Commission has urged Northern Ashanti Mines Limited to pursue its legal challenge against the termination of its mining leases and prospecting licences through the courts rather than the media, insisting that the dispute should be resolved through the established judicial process.
The Commission’s Chief Executive Officer, Isaac Tandoh, made the position clear at a press conference on Thursday, October 29, accusing the mining company of attempting to influence public opinion through media engagements while simultaneously challenging the termination decision in court.
Mr Tandoh said the company had formally acknowledged receipt of the notice terminating its mineral rights but had subsequently chosen to contest the decision through legal proceedings while continuing to make public statements about the matter.
He maintained that the appropriate course of action was for the company to concentrate on its court case rather than conduct what the Commission considers a parallel campaign in the media.
“The company duly acknowledged receipt of the termination notice and yet it has chosen the courts. So we advise that they should pursue the courts and not the court of public opinion,” he said.
Mr Tandoh further rejected the suggestion that Northern Ashanti Mines was seeking dialogue with the authorities, arguing that its decision to sue the sector minister, the Minerals Commission and the Attorney General demonstrated its intention to pursue litigation.
“We state plainly, a company that sues the Honourable Minister, the Minerals Commission and the Attorney General is not a company that is seeking dialogue. It is a company seeking to litigate in court and in the media simultaneously. This is improper, and it is contemptuous of the judicial process,” he stated.
The Commission’s comments follow an enforcement operation conducted on Thursday, October 22, when its officers, accompanied by military personnel, entered the company’s concession to implement the termination of its mining lease.
According to the Commission, the decision was prompted by the company’s failure to settle statutory fees and its inability to undertake meaningful mining operations for more than two years.
Mr Tandoh said the termination was carried out under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176), and the relevant agreements governing the company’s mineral rights.
The Commission disclosed that Northern Ashanti Mines had accumulated US$8.33 million in outstanding Annual Mineral Right fees relating to its mining leases for the period between 2010 and 2025. It further stated that the company owed an additional US$49,928 in fees associated with prospecting licences covering the period from 2019 to 2025.
Mr Tandoh insisted that the Commission had acted lawfully throughout the process, explaining that the company had been afforded several opportunities to settle its outstanding obligations and regularise its position before the termination decision was implemented.
“The Minerals Commission acted lawfully and followed due process at every stage. The company was given several opportunities to regularise its position, but they chose not to do so,” he said.
He added that the termination meant the mineral rights had reverted to the state, while the company remained responsible for financial obligations and other liabilities incurred before the decision took effect.
“Once the annual mineral rights were terminated, they reverted to the state as a lawful owner without prejudice to all the liabilities assumed by the company prior to termination, including the substantial indebtedness,” Mr Tandoh stated.
The Commission’s chief executive maintained that the institution would not be diverted from its regulatory responsibilities by the company’s public commentary, stressing that Ghana’s mineral resources belonged to the people and that every holder of mineral rights was required to comply with the country’s applicable laws and statutory obligations.
The dispute places renewed attention on the enforcement of mining regulations, particularly the payment of mineral rights fees and the obligation of licence holders to comply with the conditions attached to their concessions.
While the Minerals Commission maintains that the termination was lawful and followed the required procedures, the company’s legal challenge will provide the judicial forum for the dispute to be examined. The final determination of the matter will depend on the applicable law, the evidence presented and the outcome of the proceedings.
