By Nadia Ntiamoah
Northern Ashanti Mines Limited (NAML) has launched a strong rebuttal against the Minerals Commission over the takeover of its mining premises at Konongo in the Ashanti Region, accusing the regulatory body of making misleading claims to justify the revocation of its mining lease and prospecting licence.
The company has described the Commission’s public statement defending the action as containing “falsehoods, untruths and half-truths,” insisting that the decision to revoke its licences was procedurally flawed and based on disputed financial claims.
In a statement responding to the Commission, NAML alleged that the action was driven by an ulterior motive to undermine a Ghanaian-owned mining company that it says has invested more than US$100 million in developing the mine since taking over the project in 2019.
The latest exchange has deepened the dispute between the mining company and the regulator over the legal basis for the revocation, the company’s outstanding financial obligations and the level of development undertaken at the concession.
NAML says it has resorted to the courts to protect its investment and challenge the termination of its mineral rights, while maintaining that it remains open to dialogue to resolve the disagreement.
Company Disputes Claims of Statutory Breaches
At the centre of the dispute is the Minerals Commission’s reliance on Section 68 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), in defending its action against the company.
NAML insists that it was never served with a notice identifying any statutory breach before the purported revocation of its mining lease and prospecting licence.
According to the company, the only relevant communication it received was a letter dated April 30, 2026, which purported to revoke both licences.
The company said the letter referred to an earlier notice allegedly issued to it, but maintained that no such communication had ever been received.
It consequently rejected the Commission’s position that the applicable statutory requirements had been satisfied before the revocation.
“The Company finds the claim and actions of the Minerals Commission perplexing and in complete bad faith,” the statement said.
The company’s argument raises questions about whether the prescribed procedures were followed before the decision was taken. However, its allegations remain contested claims, and the court will have to determine the legality of the revocation if the matter proceeds to a substantive ruling.
Dispute Over Alleged US$8.3 Million Debt
NAML has also challenged the Commission’s claim that its outstanding obligations amounted to US$8.332 million in respect of the mining lease and US$49,000 relating to the prospecting licence.
The company described the figures as “extremely bizarre and unfortunate,” arguing that they do not reflect the financial position recorded in the Commission’s own documents.
According to NAML, an audit communication issued by the Minerals Commission in May 2026 put its total debt profile at approximately US$2.4 million, separate from a legacy debt of US$8.3 million attributed to Owerri Mines, the previous operator of the mine.
The company maintains that the distinction between its own liabilities and those inherited from the former operator is crucial to understanding the financial disagreement.
NAML further said it had paid more than US$1 million towards reducing its outstanding balance.
It explained that, since taking over the mine in 2019, it had been investing in infrastructure and establishing the facilities needed to commence full-scale gold production. The company argued that it should therefore be given additional time to settle its outstanding obligations while completing the development of the project.
According to the statement, management had proposed such an arrangement to the Minerals Commission and claimed that the Commission had not expressed disagreement with the proposal.
NAML said it was therefore difficult to understand why alleged indebtedness had become a basis for revoking its licences without what it considers an adequate opportunity to resolve the matter.
NAML Rejects Claims of Inactivity at Konongo Mine
The company has also taken issue with the Commission’s assertion that it had not undertaken meaningful mining operations on the concession for more than two years.
NAML described that claim as “most insincere,” arguing that responsible mining involves more than the immediate production and sale of gold.
It said its activities since acquiring the project had included developing the mine, investing in infrastructure, constructing a processing plant and preparing ore for future production.
The company further argued that the Commission itself had issued permits for several development and mining-related activities on the concession.
According to NAML, two permits were granted on February 7 and February 17, 2026, both with expiry dates of December 31, 2026. The company said it had been undertaking mining activities in accordance with those permits, including stockpiling ore for processing when the mine returns to full operations.
It questioned how the regulator could maintain that no meaningful activity was taking place while, according to the company, approving projects and issuing permits for work at the same site.
“It is beyond comprehension how the Commission can claim that the Company, which has invested over 100 million dollars to develop the mine and has consequently procured many permits from the same Commission, is not carrying out any meaningful mining activity,” the statement said.
The disagreement highlights a fundamental issue in the case: whether the development activities and permits cited by NAML satisfy the relevant legal and regulatory obligations attached to its mineral rights.
That question remains unresolved by the competing statements.
Company Takes Legal Action to Protect Investment
NAML said its decision to pursue legal action was intended to protect its investment and its ambition to build an indigenous Ghanaian mining company capable of contributing significantly to the national economy.
The company linked that ambition to President John Dramani Mahama’s stated vision of strengthening Ghanaian participation in the mining sector and developing locally owned businesses into major contributors to economic growth.
It also alleged that the Konongo dispute reflected an emerging pattern of what it described as “horrible, unlawful takeovers” of gold mining assets belonging to Ghanaian enterprises, which it claims are being instigated or seemingly engineered by the Minerals Commission.
The company did not provide details of other cases to substantiate that broader allegation in the statement.
Its immediate legal challenge concerns the revocation of its own mining lease and prospecting licence and the steps taken to enforce the decision at the Konongo premises.
The dispute follows the company’s earlier move to seek court protection against interference with its operations and a possible takeover of the concession. The proceedings are intended to challenge the termination and prevent further action while the legality of the decision is considered.
NAML’s position is that the investment, development work and permits associated with the project should be taken into account in determining whether the regulator acted lawfully.
