The Minerals Commission has disclosed that the State has granted new mineral rights over the Nsutam and Osiem mining concessions previously held by Narawa Company Limited to two different entities, insisting that the new operators are working within the law.
The disclosure comes amid a dispute over the termination of Narawa’s mining leases, with the company reportedly alleging that the Minerals Commission wrongfully terminated its rights and handed its operations over to another individual.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, the Commission said the State had exercised its rights over the concessions following the termination of Narawa’s leases and subsequently granted new mineral rights to two entities.
According to the Commission, the new operators are operating in compliance with the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, dismissing suggestions that the transition amounted to an unlawful takeover of the concessions.
The statement, however, did not identify the two entities that have been granted the new mineral rights.
Commission Defends Transfer of Mining Rights
The Commission maintained that Narawa no longer holds any valid mineral rights, interests or entitlements over the Nsutam and Osiem concession areas following the termination of its leases.
It explained that the mineral rights had reverted to the State, paving the way for the subsequent grant of new rights to the two entities.
The Commission also denied authorising or permitting any unlawful invasion of the affected areas, insisting that the State’s actions were consistent with its legal authority over mineral resources.
The development places the new operators at the centre of the dispute, as Narawa challenges the legality of the process through which its leases were terminated.
However, the Commission’s statement did not provide further details about the identities of the new rights holders, the specific terms of their grants or the precise scope of their operations.
US$909,127 Debt Cited as Reason for Termination
Explaining the circumstances leading to the termination, the Commission said Narawa defaulted on its obligation to pay annual mineral rights fees amounting to US$909,127.79.
The company held the Nsutam and Osiem mining leases and was required to pay the fees under Section 24 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), and Clause 27 of its mining lease agreements with the Government of Ghana.
According to the Commission, it issued notices requiring Narawa to remedy the breach under Section 68(2) of Act 703 and Regulation 200(3) of the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176).
It said the company failed to settle the outstanding amount within the stipulated period, leading to a recommendation for termination.
The Commission disclosed that it recommended the termination to the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources in a letter dated July 29, 2025. The Minister approved the recommendation on August 19, 2025, and a formal notice of termination was issued to Narawa on September 3, 2025.
It described the process as lawful, rejecting allegations that the leases were forcibly or wrongfully taken from the company.
Arbitration Challenges Termination
Despite the Commission’s position, the legality of the termination remains under challenge.
The Commission acknowledged that Narawa instituted arbitration proceedings on December 12, 2025, contesting the termination of its mineral rights.
The matter remains pending, but the Commission insists that the termination remains in full force and effect until a final determination is made.
It further warned that any mining activity undertaken by Narawa on the affected concessions after the termination date would constitute illegal mining.
The Commission criticised the company’s resort to media allegations while the substantive dispute remains before a competent adjudicatory body, describing such claims as misleading.
Key Questions Remain
The granting of new mineral rights to two entities while arbitration over the original leases remains pending raises important questions about the dispute’s potential implications for the affected concessions.
Among the issues of public interest are the identities of the new rights holders, the terms under which the concessions were granted and how the pending arbitration could affect the parties’ interests.
The Minerals Commission has maintained that the new operators are acting lawfully and that the termination of Narawa’s leases followed due process.
The final outcome of the arbitration is expected to provide further clarity on the contested termination, while the Commission says it remains committed to the lawful administration of Ghana’s mineral resources.
