Story By: Felix Ernest Odamtten / Mohammed Faisal Mustapha…..
The Minerals Commission has mounted a strong defence of the revocation of the mining leases of Northern Ashanti Mines Limited, formerly known as Owere Mines, insisting that the decision followed years of unpaid statutory fees, repeated notices of default and unsuccessful efforts to secure payment of more than US$8.3 million owed to the State.
At a press briefing at its head office in Accra on Thursday, October 29, 2026, the Commission rejected allegations that the termination of the company’s mineral rights was motivated by bad faith. It maintained that the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources and the regulatory authority acted within their respective legal mandates.
The dispute has brought renewed attention to the enforcement of Ghana’s mining laws, the financial obligations attached to mineral rights and the responsibility of the State to protect its interests in the management of the country’s natural resources.
According to the Commission, Northern Ashanti Mines acquired a mining lease covering 595 cadastral blocks in January 2010. However, the company allegedly failed to fulfil its annual mineral right fee obligations under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), resulting in a debt that accumulated over several years.
The Commission said its efforts to recover the outstanding amounts began well before the eventual termination of the leases, with the company receiving multiple notices and opportunities to remedy the alleged breaches.
A Debt That Continued To Grow:
The Commission traced the dispute to a Notice to Remedy Breach issued to Owere Mines on May 28, 2020, when the outstanding debt had exceeded US$4 million.
Following a transitional takeover involving BCM Investments, the company proposed settling the arrears in four instalments. The Commission said it accepted the principle of the proposed arrangement in June 2020 but requested specific payment dates to facilitate implementation.
According to the regulator, the company failed to provide the requested dates and did not fulfil the proposed payment arrangement. A further notice was consequently issued on November 5, 2020, as the dispute over the outstanding fees remained unresolved.
The Commission said additional notices followed in October and December 2022, as the outstanding obligations continued to rise. Its records placed the debt at US$5,595,238.14 as of October 13, 2022, before it increased to approximately US$6.188 million by December 29 that year.
The regulator said the company remained in default despite these interventions, prompting another notice on April 14, 2025, covering unpaid fees associated with the mining leases and prospecting licences.
By that stage, the Commission put the outstanding fees on the mining leases at US$8.33 million, with a further US$49,928 owed on prospecting licences for the period between 2019 and 2025.
The Commission maintained that the amounts remained unpaid and argued that the continued accumulation of the debt left the authorities with grounds to proceed with enforcement action.
“The Commission’s position is that the revocation followed repeated notices of default and several opportunities for the company to regularise its obligations.”
Ministerial Approval And Termination:
The Commission said it formally notified the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources on April 7, 2026, of the company’s continued failure to settle the outstanding fees and requested the issuance of a termination notice.
According to the account presented at the briefing, the Minister approved the issuance of the notice, after which the Commission proceeded to terminate the company’s mineral rights.
The Commission characterised the non payment as persistent and argued that the State had allowed the company sufficient opportunities to address the alleged breaches before taking the final step.
However, the company’s challenge to the decision means that the legal basis for the termination, the calculation of the outstanding amounts and the parties’ respective obligations remain matters of dispute.
Disagreement Over The Debt:
A major point of contention concerns the amount owed and the payments the company says it has made.
The Commission defended the US$8.33 million figure, explaining that the amount had increased from approximately US$6 million in December 2022 because the annual fees continued to accrue while the company remained in default.
It also disputed the company’s reported payment figures. According to the Commission, its records showed that Northern Ashanti Mines had paid US$300,000 in annual mineral right fees through two instalments, rather than the US$1 million the company was reported to have claimed.
The regulator questioned why the outstanding fees had not been settled if, as the company reportedly maintained, approximately US$200 million had been invested in the mine.
Nevertheless, the investment figure and the competing payment claims would require verification against the parties’ financial records and supporting documentation. The Commission’s statements represent its account of the dispute and should be considered alongside the company’s response and any findings made by the courts.
Litigation Complicates Calls For Dialogue:
The Commission also challenged the company’s stated interest in dialogue, pointing to legal proceedings initiated against the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, the Minerals Commission and the Attorney General.
It argued that the courts should be allowed to determine the dispute, rather than have the matter pursued simultaneously through litigation and public commentary.
The Commission confirmed that Northern Ashanti Mines had acknowledged receipt of the termination notice but had elected to challenge the decision in court.
The company’s legal challenge is significant because it places the dispute within a formal judicial process, where the legality of the administrative action and the evidence supporting the competing positions can be examined.
Until the matter is resolved, the Commission’s defence of its actions should not be treated as a judicial determination of the dispute.
State Rights And Outstanding Liabilities:
The Commission maintained that the termination of the mineral rights meant that the rights had reverted to the State. It stressed, however, that the termination did not extinguish liabilities incurred before the revocation.
The regulator said it reserved the right to pursue Northern Ashanti Mines for all outstanding sums it maintains are owed to the State.
It also cited the need to safeguard the mining assets that had reverted to the State against possible dissipation, encroachment or interference by illegal operators.
In support of its position, the Commission referred to Section 70 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), which it cited in relation to the status of mining assets following the termination of mineral rights.
The application of the relevant statutory provisions, including their implications for the affected assets and the parties’ outstanding obligations, remains subject to the applicable law and any determination by the competent authorities or courts.
Enforcement And Accountability In The Mining Sector:
Concluding the briefing, the Commission insisted that it had followed due process and given Northern Ashanti Mines several opportunities to settle its obligations before proceeding with the termination.
It reiterated that mineral rights carry statutory responsibilities and that companies operating in Ghana’s mining industry must comply with the laws governing the exploitation of the country’s mineral resources.
The Commission said it remained committed to enforcing the law without fear or favour and pursuing outstanding payments owed to the State.
The case has become a significant test of the relationship between mining companies and regulatory authorities, particularly over the enforcement of financial obligations, the administration of mineral rights and the protection of public assets.
For Ghana, the central issue extends beyond the immediate disagreement between the Commission and Northern Ashanti Mines. It concerns how consistently the State enforces its mining laws, how transparently disputed liabilities are established and how the rights of both investors and the public are protected.
As the legal challenge proceeds, the outcome could help clarify the issues surrounding the revocation, the disputed debt and the responsibilities that remain after the termination of mineral rights. Until then, the Commission maintains that its action was lawful, while the company’s challenge leaves the dispute awaiting judicial determination.
