BY ISSAH OLEGOR
The controversy over the revocation of the mining leases held by Adamus Resources Limited is increasingly moving beyond the original dispute over mining operations and environmental compliance, with findings attributed to a Ministerial Review Committee raising serious questions about the company’s financial obligations, gold production records and the revenue Ghana may have lost.
At the centre of the controversy is the question of whether the state received the full financial benefits due from the extraction and export of Ghana’s mineral resources.
The review findings point to substantial outstanding statutory payments, large transfers to related companies and inconsistencies between gold production figures submitted to different state institutions.
According to the ministerial committee set up by the Lands and Natural Resourses Minister, Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah, Adamus Resources was in arrears of GH¢86.78 million in royalties payable to the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) dating from 2020. The company was also said to have accumulated GH¢119.04 million in tax arrears to the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) from 2023, while another US$2.56 million was reportedly outstanding to the Minerals Commission as well as money owed to traditional authorities.
Taken together, the figures amount to approximately GH¢205.83 million in statutory arrears, in addition to US$2.56 million, representing obligations that the review committee considered payable to the Ghanaian state for the company’s mining activities.
But the financial concerns become more complicated when those alleged arrears are considered alongside transactions involving companies linked to Adamus Resources.
The committee’s review of Adamus’s financial statements reportedly found that the company transferred more than US$224.61 million to related parties between 2020 and 2024. Approximately US$123.14 million of that amount was transferred to Segala Mining Corporation SA, Semico 1 and Semico 2 in Mali. The committee therefore questioned the explanation that Adamus’s failure to meet its statutory obligations was simply the result of insufficient cash or temporary financial difficulties.
That finding introduces one of the most contentious aspects of the controversy: how a company could have substantial outstanding obligations to the state while simultaneously transferring hundreds of millions of dollars to related entities outside the country.
The committee’s findings, as contained in the supplied material, suggest that significant funds were available for transactions within the corporate group even as payments owed to Ghana remained outstanding. The committee consequently regarded the circumstances as pointing towards deliberate non-compliance rather than merely routine financial difficulties.
Another major issue raised by the review concerns Adamus Resources’ gold production and export records.
The company reportedly failed to produce its statutory Gold Production Book to the committee. As a result, the committee relied on Form 16A monthly returns and royalty returns submitted to the GRA to examine the company’s production figures.
The records allegedly revealed significant discrepancies.
For the period covering 2020 to January–March 2026, the supplied material records different gold quantities reported by Adamus and state institutions. The GRA figure was 72,194.94 ounces, while the Minerals Commission recorded 71,553 ounces. Adamus’s own shipment records, however, reportedly showed 74,375.14 ounces.
The differences have inevitably raised questions about the accuracy of the company’s production and export reporting.
The ministerial committee asks whether the discrepancies could indicate gold smuggling or an attempt to conceal the actual quantity produced and exported. However, those questions should not themselves be treated as established findings of smuggling unless competent investigative or judicial authorities establish such conduct. What the discrepancies demonstrate, based on the committee report, is that the figures reported by the different sources did not reconcile.
The committee also identified additional variances estimated at approximately US$12.02 million and US$21.30 million. Such discrepancies are significant because the quantity of gold produced and exported is directly relevant to determining the royalties and taxes payable to the state.
The committee reportedly described the records as “suspicious” and concluded that they had been prepared with the purpose of evading statutory liabilities. Any criminal or civil consequences, however, would depend on the appropriate enforcement and legal processes.
Gold worth more than US$1 billion
The financial picture becomes even more striking when the reported value of Adamus’s gold production is considered. Records attributed to the GRA indicate that between 2020 and January–March 2026, Adamus Resources recorded approximately 8.8 tonnes of gold valued at more than US$1 billion.
The committee states that, under the applicable arrangements, 10 percent of the relevant proceeds were expected to be paid to MIIF. Yet records reportedly showed outstanding obligations to MIIF alongside tax liabilities to the GRA.
