…Company Says High Court Ruling Misrepresented, Reversing Party Whose Appeal Application Was Dismissed
Narawa Company Limited has demanded an immediate retraction, correction and unreserved public apology from Current Issues newspaper over a front-page publication which reported that the company had suffered a major legal setback in its ongoing mining dispute with the Republic of Ghana.
In a formal rejoinder, the company described the Wednesday, October 28, 2026, publication, headlined “Narawa Suffered Heavy Legal Blow,” as wrong, misleading and a serious misrepresentation of the orders of the High Court.
The company insists that the newspaper incorrectly attributed the dismissal of an application for leave to appeal to Narawa when, according to the court’s ruling of June 9, 2026, it was the Republic of Ghana whose application was dismissed.
Narawa said the ruling in Suit No. GJ/CM/MISC/0216/2026 concerned an application filed by the Republic for leave to appeal against provisional measures granted in favour of the company, an application which Narawa opposed.
It maintained that the court’s decision therefore did not establish that Narawa had suffered a legal defeat, as suggested by the newspaper’s headline and accompanying report.
The proceedings were presided over by Justice Afi Agbanu Kudomor at the High Court, Commercial Division 4, in Accra.
According to the rejoinder, counsel for the Republic indicated on page one of the ruling that the State was not opposed to the entirety of the February 19, 2026 ruling but sought to challenge the second order relating to interference with Narawa’s mining operations.
Narawa further explained that, on page four of the June 9 ruling, the court dismissed the Republic’s application for leave to appeal, which was filed on March 9, 2026.
The judge reportedly reasoned that the proposed ground of appeal concerned the legitimacy of the termination of the mining leases, an issue which fell within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under the arbitration agreements between the parties.
The company stressed that the June ruling neither dismissed an application filed by Narawa nor finally determined the validity of the termination of its mining leases.
It has consequently challenged Current Issues to identify any different or subsequent judicial decision relied upon in its October 28 publication, including the court, date, suit number, application determined and precise orders made.
Narawa cites February injunction
The company also referred to the formal court order issued on February 19, 2026, under Section 39 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).
The order restrained the Republic of Ghana from forcefully or otherwise removing or evicting Narawa from the mine sites covered by its mining leases.
It also prohibited the State from harassing, disrupting or otherwise interfering with the company’s operations at the sites, as well as purporting to grant, hand over or transfer the concessions to another person or entity.
According to Narawa, the restrictions were intended to remain in force pending the final determination of the disputes between the parties by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The company, however, cautioned against interpreting the provisional protections as a final determination of the substantive arbitration dispute, including questions concerning indebtedness and the validity of the termination of the mining leases.
Reports three deaths, 12 injuries
Beyond the legal dispute, Narawa drew attention to reported violent incidents at the mining sites, saying its records indicated that incidents between August 12, 2026, and the date of its rejoinder had resulted in three deaths and injuries to 12 people, including a police officer.
The company called for impartial investigations to establish the circumstances surrounding the incidents and determine responsibility.
It extended condolences to the bereaved families and sympathy to those injured, insisting that the casualties and the need for accountability deserved serious attention alongside the financial and regulatory issues surrounding the mining dispute.
Narawa was, however, careful to clarify that the casualty figures represented its own account and that the court rulings cited in the rejoinder did not determine responsibility for the reported violence.
The company said its position was motivated by the need to protect accuracy, fairness and respect for the judicial process, rather than to prejudge issues still pending before the courts and the Arbitral Tribunal.
“We respect the independence of the courts and the arbitral process. We seek accurate reporting of their decisions, without prejudging matters that remain for determination,” the rejoinder stated.
