… As Smear Campaign Against The Mahamas Exposed
The Minerals Commission has pushed back against allegations of political interference in the revocation of Nawara Company Limited’s mining licence over the Nsuapemso concession in the Eastern Region, insisting that the decision followed the company’s failure to settle approximately US$990,000 in outstanding annual mineral rights payments.
The Commission’s explanation has shifted attention to Nawara’s financial obligations, the 120-day deadline granted to the company to settle the outstanding payments and the regulatory process that ultimately led to the revocation of its licence on September 3, 2025.
The controversy has also drawn businessman Alfred Mahama, brother of President John Dramani Mahama, into the dispute, with companies seeking to operate the concession rejecting allegations linking him to the loss of Nawara’s mining rights.
Frank Asare, Director of Mineral Titles at the Minerals Commission, said Nawara was formally notified in March 2025 to settle its outstanding obligations under Section 68 of the Minerals and Mining Act but failed to meet the deadline, which expired in July 2025.
Speaking to Kwame Nkrumah Tikese on Okay FM’s Ade Akye Abia, Mr Asare explained that the Commission proceeded with the regulatory process after the company failed to settle the outstanding amount within the stipulated period.
The Commission’s account places the alleged unpaid debt, rather than the political connections of individuals associated with competing interests, at the centre of the licence revocation.
Us$990,000 Debt And Expired Deadline
According to Mr Asare, Nawara was given 120 days to regularise its
financial obligations after receiving the notice in March 2025.
The deadline expired in July without the outstanding payments being settled, paving the way for further action against the company’s mining rights.
Mr Asare further disclosed that Martin Ayisi, the Commission’s former Chief Executive Officer, subsequently recommended to the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources that Nawara’s licence be revoked.
The licence was eventually revoked on September 3, 2025.
The Commission’s position is that the decision followed the established regulatory process after Nawara allegedly failed to meet its financial obligations.
The development raises questions about why the company did not settle the outstanding payments within the 120-day period and whether it disputes the amount assessed by the Commission.
Nawara’s response, including any evidence of payments or a formal challenge to the assessment, would be necessary to establish its position on the debt and the circumstances surrounding the revocation.
CMS-PRO, AA Southern Industries Reject Alfred Mahama Allegations
The dispute has generated political controversy following allegations seeking to link Alfred Mahama to the revocation of Nawara’s licence.
However, CMS-PRO and AA Southern Industries, which are seeking to operate the Nsuapemso concession, have rejected claims that Alfred Mahama influenced the Commission’s decision.
The companies maintain that the revocation was based on regulatory and financial considerations and should not be attributed to political interference without supporting evidence.
Their position is reinforced by the Minerals Commission’s explanation that Nawara was issued a notice over its outstanding financial obligations, given 120 days to comply and subsequently lost its licence after the deadline expired without payment.
Nevertheless, establishing whether political interference occurred would require independent evidence beyond the competing claims surrounding the concession.
The Commission’s account provides its stated regulatory basis for the revocation, while the allegations involving Alfred Mahama remain contested.
Revoked Licence Does Not Automatically Restore Nawara’s Rights
Mr Asare also clarified that mining concessions are state-owned assets and that the revocation of an existing licence does not automatically prevent other eligible companies from applying to operate the concession.
According to him, Nawara’s former licence no longer provides an automatic legal basis for the company to continue operating the site.
He further explained that the outstanding debt remains the responsibility of Nawara Company Limited and would not automatically be transferred to any company that subsequently obtains rights to the concession.
The Commission intends to continue considering applications for the Nsuapemso concession unless the High Court issues an order directing it to restore Nawara’s rights.
The clarification places the legal status of the concession at the centre of the dispute, particularly as competing companies seek to establish their eligibility to operate the site.
Any determination of the competing claims must, however, take account of applicable mining laws, the status of pending proceedings and any relevant court orders.
Allegations Of Violence And Looting Require Investigation
Beyond the financial and licensing issues, allegations of violence and the looting of assets during the reported takeover of the Nsuapemso site have added to the controversy.
These allegations raise separate questions that cannot be conclusively resolved by the circumstances surrounding the revocation of Nawara’s licence.
Even where a licence has been lawfully revoked, the legality of subsequent actions at a mining site must be assessed independently.
The relevant authorities would therefore need to establish what occurred, identify those involved and determine whether any laws were breached.
The financial obligations attributed to Nawara cannot, on their own, establish the legality or otherwise of the alleged incidents at the concession.
Nawara’s Response Crucial To Settling The Dispute
The Minerals Commission’s explanation has placed the alleged US$990,000 debt, the March 2025 notice and the expiry of the 120-day deadline at the heart of the Nsuapemso dispute.
For now, the Commission maintains that the licence was revoked following Nawara’s failure to settle the outstanding payments within the period granted.
While CMS-PRO and AA Southern Industries have rejected allegations linking Alfred Mahama to the decision, the competing claims require evidence-based examination.
The central issues remain whether Nawara met its financial obligations, whether the revocation complied with the applicable law and whether the subsequent events at the concession were lawful.
