Northern Ashanti Mines Limited has accused the Minerals Commission of Ghana of making false and misleading claims in its defence of the revocation of the company’s mining lease and prospecting licence, describing the regulator’s actions as unlawful and detrimental to Ghanaian investment.
In a press statement responding to the Commission’s earlier release concerning the takeover of its premises in Konongo, the company disputed the grounds cited for the revocation and questioned the procedures followed by the regulator.
Northern Ashanti Mines Limited (NAML) alleged that the Commission’s statement contained inaccuracies and half-truths intended to undermine a Ghanaian-owned mining enterprise that it says has invested more than US$200 million in developing the mine since taking over the asset in 2020.
“That the said press release is, with due respect, loaded with falsehoods, untruths and half-truths which can only be borne out of an ulterior motive to destroy a Ghanaian company which has invested over two hundred million dollars (US$200,000,000) in a mine it took over in 2020,” the company stated.
The allegations form the central argument of the company’s response, which challenges the Commission’s account of the circumstances surrounding the revocation of its mining rights.
Company challenges legality of revocation
A major concern raised by Northern Ashanti Mines is whether the Minerals Commission complied with the requirements of Section 68 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), before revoking the company’s mining lease.
The company denied the Commission’s claim that the relevant statutory requirements had been satisfied, insisting that it had not received any prior notice alleging a breach of the law before the revocation was communicated.
“For the record, Northern Ashanti Mines Limited denies the claim by the Commission of having satisfied the requirements of Section 68 of the Minerals and Mining Act 2006 (Act 703),” the statement said.
It added that the only correspondence it had received concerning the matter was a letter dated April 30, 2026, through which the Commission purported to revoke its mining lease and prospecting licence.
According to the company, although the April 30 letter referred to an earlier communication allegedly served on it, no such letter had been issued to the company.
“The Company finds the claim and actions of the Minerals Commission perplexing and in complete bad faith,” it stated.
The company’s position raises questions about the notification process preceding the revocation. However, the allegations contained in the statement represent NAML’s account of events and do not, on their own, establish whether the Commission complied with the law.
Dispute over alleged US$8.3 million debt
Northern Ashanti Mines also challenged the financial figures cited in connection with the revocation, particularly an alleged debt of US$8.332 million relating to the mining lease and US$49,000 associated with the prospecting licence.
The company described the figures as inconsistent with the Commission’s own financial records, pointing to an audit communication dated May 2026 which it said placed its total debt profile at approximately US$2.4 million.
NAML argued that a separate legacy debt of about US$8.3 million belonged to Oweri Mines, the company that operated the mine before Northern Ashanti acquired it.
The statement said: “An audit communication by the Minerals Commission dated as recently as May 2026 pegged the total debt profile of Northern Ashanti Mines at about $2.4 million.”
It continued that the legacy debt was “standing in the name of Oweri Mines, the company which operated the mine before the acquisition by Northern Ashanti.”
The company further disclosed that it had made payments exceeding US$1 million towards reducing its outstanding obligations.
“Regardless of this distinction, the Company has made payments of over $1 million to reduce its outstanding payments,” the statement added.
The dispute over the figures centres on the amount attributed to Northern Ashanti Mines and whether the legacy obligations of the previous operator should be treated separately from the company’s own liabilities.
The Minerals Commission’s detailed response to these specific financial claims was not included in the statement reviewed for this report.
NAML says it sought time to settle outstanding obligations
The company said it had proposed to the Minerals Commission that it be given additional time to settle its outstanding obligations, explaining that it had been investing in mine development and the construction of a gold processing plant without yet producing gold or generating revenue.
According to NAML, the investments and preparatory work undertaken since its takeover in 2020 were intended to establish the infrastructure required for full-scale operations.
It maintained that the Commission had not expressed disagreement with its proposal to be given time to clear the outstanding debt.
“The Company has proposed to the Minerals Commission that since it has been putting the relevant structures in place, including the setting up of a gold processing plant since taking over in 2020, and not producing gold or earning revenue yet, it should be given time to clear its indebtedness,” the statement said.
The company consequently questioned the decision to rely on the alleged indebtedness as a basis for revoking its mining rights.
“The reliance on an alleged indebtedness of NAML to revoke its mining lease and prospecting licence is thus bizarre and in bad faith,” it added.
The statement did not provide a specific timeline for the proposed repayment arrangement or details of the terms discussed with the Commission.
Company rejects claims of inactivity at mine
Another major point of disagreement concerns the Commission’s reported claim that Northern Ashanti Mines had failed to undertake meaningful mining operations on the concession for more than two years.
NAML rejected that assertion, arguing that mining operations should not be assessed solely by the volume of gold produced, particularly where a company is undertaking mine development and investing in production infrastructure.
The company said responsible mining involved several stages, including the development of the mine, construction of processing facilities and preparation of ore for subsequent production.
“It fails to take into cognisance that responsible mining operations (not galamsey) in accordance with the laws of Ghana, involve mine development and investments into various aspects of the gold production process,” the statement said.
NAML further claimed that the Minerals Commission had granted it permits to undertake various projects, including the construction of a new plant and mining activities intended to stockpile ore for future production.
According to the company, two permits were granted on February 7 and February 17, 2026.
It said it had been carrying out mining activities in the area under those permits, operating its mining fleet on both day and night shifts.
The company questioned how the Commission could accuse it of failing to undertake meaningful mining activities despite the permits it had received and the investments it claimed to have made.
“It is beyond comprehension how the Commission, whose representatives pay frequent visits to the site can claim that the Company which has invested over 200 million dollars to develop the mine, and has consequently procured many permits from the same Commission, is not carrying out any meaningful mining activity,” it stated.
The company’s account places mine development and preparation for production at the centre of its defence against the allegation of prolonged inactivity.
Company takes dispute to court, calls for dialogue
Northern Ashanti Mines said it had resorted to legal action to protect its investment and pursue its ambition of developing an indigenous Ghanaian mining company capable of contributing significantly to the national economy.
The company also expressed concern about what it described as an emerging pattern of unlawful takeovers involving gold mining assets owned by Ghanaian enterprises.
“The Company observes an emerging trend of horrible, unlawful takeovers of gold mining assets owned by Ghanaian enterprises and instigated or seemingly engineered by the Minerals Commission of Ghana,” the statement said.
It linked its investment ambitions to the broader national objective of building indigenous businesses that can support economic growth, referencing President John Mahama’s stated vision for Ghana’s economy.
Despite its strong criticism of the Commission, NAML said it remained open to discussions aimed at resolving the dispute.
“NAML is open to dialogue and a process that will not sour the investment climate for mining in Ghana,” the statement concluded.
The dispute places renewed attention on the relationship between mining regulators and private operators, particularly over the enforcement of statutory obligations, outstanding payments, mine development requirements and the protection of investments.
The issues raised by Northern Ashanti Mines remain allegations and claims made by the company in its press statement. A full assessment of the dispute would require the Minerals Commission’s response, the relevant correspondence, the applicable permit records and any court proceedings or decisions relating to the revocation.
