Josiah
The Minerals Commission has vowed to pursue Northern Ashanti Mines Limited for more than US$8.38 million in outstanding statutory fees, insisting that the termination of the company’s mining leases and prospecting licences was lawful and followed years of alleged non-compliance.
The Commission says the company, formerly known as Owere Mines, failed to honour its financial obligations despite repeated notices and opportunities to settle its debts, leaving the regulator with grounds to terminate its mineral rights.
Addressing a press conference on Thursday, October 29, the Commission’s Chief Executive Officer, Isaac Tandoh, maintained that neither the company’s investment claims nor its challenge to the decision absolved it of its statutory obligations.
“The law is the law. Mineral rights are not an inheritance,” the Commission stated in its defence of the termination.
The Commission’s position comes amid an escalating dispute with Northern Ashanti Mines, which has accused the regulator of misrepresenting the facts and unlawfully taking away its mining rights.
US$8.38m debt dispute
According to the Commission, Northern Ashanti Mines accumulated US$8.33 million in unpaid Annual Mineral Right (AMR) fees covering its mining leases from 2010 to 2025, alongside US$49,928 in outstanding fees for prospecting licences covering 2019 to 2025.
The regulator maintains that the outstanding amounts were not the result of a sudden disagreement but accumulated over several years.
It says the company was already in default by May 2020, when the outstanding fees exceeded US$4 million.
Following the takeover of the company by BCM Investments, the Commission says management proposed settling the debt in four instalments. Although the regulator accepted the principle of the arrangement in June 2020, it says the company failed to provide firm payment dates and did not honour the proposed terms.
By October 2022, the alleged debt had risen to US$5.59 million, increasing to approximately US$6.19 million by December of that year.
A further notice issued on April 14, 2025, put the outstanding mining lease fees at US$8.33 million, excluding the additional US$49,928 owed on prospecting licences.
The Commission insists that its records support the figures and rejects the company’s attempt to portray the termination as an arbitrary decision.
From repeated notices to termination
The Commission says it gave Northern Ashanti Mines several opportunities to remedy the alleged breaches before resorting to termination.
On April 14, 2025, it issued Notices to Remedy Breach under Section 68(2) of Act 703 and Regulation 200(3) of the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176).
According to the regulator, the company failed to comply within the stipulated period.
The Commission also cited Section 69(1) of Act 703, alleging that the company had not undertaken meaningful mining operations on the concession for more than two years.
On April 7, 2026, the Commission notified the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources of the alleged persistent breaches and requested approval to issue a termination notice.
The Minister approved the request on April 24, 2026, and the Commission terminated the mineral rights on April 30.
The regulator maintains that the sequence of notices, ministerial approval and subsequent termination demonstrates that it exercised its statutory powers in accordance with the law.
‘Take the matter to court, not the court of public opinion’
The Minerals Commission has also criticised the company for challenging the termination through legal proceedings while continuing to make public statements about the dispute.
Mr Tandoh said the company had acknowledged receipt of the termination notice before initiating legal action against the Lands Minister, the Minerals Commission and the Attorney-General.
“The company duly acknowledged receipt of the termination notice and yet it has chosen the courts. So we advise that they should pursue the courts and not the court of public opinion,” he said.
The Commission argues that the company should allow the judicial process to determine the legality of the termination instead of seeking public sympathy through media statements.
Commission rejects investment argument
Northern Ashanti Mines has said it invested more than US$200 million in developing the Konongo mine after taking over the operation in 2020.
The company argues that its investment in mine development, equipment and the construction of a processing plant demonstrates its commitment to the project.
The Commission, however, maintains that investment in a mining concession does not exempt a company from paying statutory fees or meeting the conditions attached to its mineral rights.
It has questioned why a company claiming to have invested such substantial sums could not settle the outstanding fees.
The regulator’s position is that the financial and operational obligations attached to a mining lease apply regardless of whether the holder is a Ghanaian-owned or foreign company.
Following the termination, the Commission says the mineral rights have reverted to the State, without prejudice to the company’s outstanding liabilities.
The Commission says the State has a responsibility to protect the assets associated with the terminated mineral rights against encroachment, dissipation and other unlawful activity.
