By Issah Olegor
Traditional authorities in the Asante Akyem area of the Ashanti Region have publicly endorsed the government’s decision to revoke the mining lease of Northern Ashanti Mines Limited (NAML), backing the Minerals Commission’s position that mining companies must fulfil their statutory obligations and demonstrate the financial and technical capacity to develop concessions granted to them.
The chiefs, including Mennamhene Nana Tweneboah Kodua Bempah and Konongo Chief Nana Dr Awuah Abedimisa II, say the revocation should serve as a reminder that mineral rights come with responsibilities and that companies cannot expect to retain mining concessions indefinitely without meeting their regulatory and financial obligations.
Their position adds a new dimension to the growing controversy surrounding the Konongo mine, where Northern Ashanti Mines is challenging the termination of its mining lease and prospecting licence in court, insisting that the Minerals Commission acted unlawfully and relied on disputed financial claims.
The traditional authorities, however, maintain that the government must enforce the mining laws and ensure that the concession is eventually placed in the hands of an investor with the resources and expertise to operate it effectively and deliver benefits to the host communities.
Chiefs Defend Government’s Decision
Speaking on behalf of Juansamanhene Nana Kwaku Dankwah Opamago Kodie II, Mennamhene Nana Tweneboah Kodua Bempah said the government was justified in terminating the company’s mineral rights if it had failed to meet its statutory obligations.
He stressed that mining companies were required to pay taxes, annual mineral right fees and other statutory revenues due the state, adding that the possession of a mining lease did not place any company above the law.
According to him, where sufficient grounds exist to establish breaches of mining regulations and contractual obligations, the appropriate authorities have the responsibility to take action in accordance with the law.
Nana Tweneboah Kodua Bempah also criticised companies that present themselves as victims after facing regulatory action, arguing that such conduct does not promote accountability or responsible mining.
His comments reflect the traditional authorities’ position that the country’s mineral resources must be managed in a manner that protects the national interest and ensures that investors fulfil the conditions attached to their concessions.
Konongo Chief Questions Company’s Financial and Operational Capacity
The Konongo Chief, Nana Dr Awuah Abedimisa II, also backed the revocation, questioning whether Northern
Ashanti Mines had demonstrated the financial capacity required to undertake effective gold mining operations.
He described the company’s performance as falling below expectations and argued that a mining concession should not remain under the control of an operator that cannot demonstrate the ability to develop it to the required standard.
The chief said the Minerals Commission’s decision was therefore necessary, particularly if the company had failed to meet the obligations associated with its mineral rights.
He nevertheless called for transparency and due diligence in selecting a new operator, insisting that the next investor must possess the financial strength, technical expertise and operational efficiency needed to develop the concession.
According to him, the process should not merely involve transferring mineral rights from one company to another but should focus on securing an operator capable of turning the area’s gold resources into meaningful economic benefits.
He further urged the Minerals Commission to ensure that the incoming investor could meet its statutory obligations, sustain mining operations and contribute to development within the concession’s catchment area.
New Operator Must Prioritise Host Communities
Beyond supporting the revocation, the traditional authorities have outlined expectations for whoever eventually takes over the Konongo mining concession.
Nana Tweneboah Kodua Bempah said the incoming operator must learn from the circumstances surrounding the termination of Northern Ashanti Mines’ lease and ensure strict compliance with Ghana’s mining laws.
He said the new company must prioritise the payment of statutory revenues, responsible management of the concession and meaningful engagement with communities affected by mining activities.
The chiefs indicated their willingness to engage the incoming operator to discuss local development priorities and establish a working relationship that promotes cooperation and sustainable growth.
Although government is expected to engage the new company on regulatory and operational matters, the traditional authorities say they also intend to hold discussions with the investor to ensure that community concerns are considered.
They expressed the hope that the change of operator would lead to more effective mining operations, increased economic activity and improved development opportunities for residents in the area.
Minerals Commission Cites US$8.38m Outstanding Obligations
The chiefs’ position follows the Minerals Commission’s explanation of the grounds for terminating Northern Ashanti Mines’ mineral rights.
In a press release dated October 27, 2026, the Commission said the revocation was undertaken in accordance with the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176), and the terms of the agreements with the company.
The Commission stated that Northern Ashanti Mines had failed to pay outstanding Annual Mineral Right (AMR) fees amounting to US$8.33 million for its mining leases covering the period from 2010 to 2025.
It also cited an additional US$49,928 in outstanding fees relating to prospecting licences for the period between 2019 and 2025.
According to the Commission, the company was issued notices on April 14, 2025, requiring it to remedy the breaches and settle the outstanding amounts within a stipulated period. It maintained that the company failed to comply with those notices.
The regulator further accused the company of failing to undertake meaningful mining operations on the concession for more than two years, which it said contravened Section 69(1) of Act 703.
The Commission said it notified the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources on April 7, 2026, and requested approval to issue a termination notice. The Minister reportedly granted approval on April 24, 2026, paving the way for the Commission to terminate the mineral rights on April 30, 2026.
Minerals Commission Rejects Company’s Allegations
The controversy intensified on Thursday, October 29, when the Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Commission, Isaac Tandoh, defended the revocation at a press conference at the Commission’s headquarters in Accra.
Tandoh rejected allegations that the Commission and the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources had acted in bad faith, insisting that the Minister exercised his lawful authority before the termination process was completed.
He also disputed Northern Ashanti Mines’ claim that it had paid more than US$1 million in annual mineral right fees.According to the Commission’s records, he said, the company had made payments totalling only US$300,000 in two separate tranches.
Tandoh questioned why a company that reportedly claimed to have invested US$200 million in the mine had failed to settle its outstanding obligations to the state.
He further said Northern Ashanti Mines had acknowledged receipt of the termination notice but had chosen to challenge the decision in court against the Minister, the Minerals Commission and the Attorney-General.
The CEO urged the company to allow the courts to determine the dispute, maintaining that the mineral rights had reverted to the state following the termination.
He added that the Commission would continue pursuing the outstanding debts and take steps to protect the mining assets against encroachment and other illegal activities in accordance with the law.
Northern Ashanti Mines Challenges Revocation in Court
The Commission’s position, however, is strongly disputed by Northern Ashanti Mines, which has accused the regulator of making false and misleading claims to justify the takeover of its Konongo premises.The company maintains that it was not served with any notice identifying statutory breaches before the April 30 termination letter and disputes the Commission’s account of its outstanding debt.
NAML has also argued that the Commission’s own financial records showed a debt profile of approximately US$2.4 million attributable to the company, separate from a legacy debt of about US$8.3 million associated with Owerri Mines, the previous operator.
It has further maintained that it made payments exceeding US$1 million and invested more than US$100 million in developing the mine since taking over the project in 2019.
The company also disputes claims that it had not undertaken meaningful mining activities, citing permits it says were issued by the Minerals Commission in February 2026 for development and mining-related activities.
Northern Ashanti Mines has consequently filed a judicial review application seeking to have the termination quashed, arguing that the Commission failed to follow the procedures required under the mining laws.
It has also sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent security agencies and other parties from taking over or interfering with its operations and property while the legal dispute remains before the court.The company’s claims and the Commission’s defence have not yet been conclusively determined by the courts.
