- ACEP Chief Urges Data-Driven Mining Debate as Ghana Weighs Resource Sovereignty and Investor Confidence
The Executive Director of the Africa Centre for Energy Policy, Ben Boakye, has cautioned against what he described as “vacuum arguments” in Ghana’s growing debate over resource nationalism, warning that emotional claims about mining value could weaken policy clarity and investor confidence if not grounded in evidence.
Speaking during the NorvanReports XSpace Special Edition on the theme “Is Ghana Asserting Resource Sovereignty, or Risking Investor Confidence in Its Mining Sector?”, Mr Boakye said Ghana’s demand for greater value from its mineral resources is justified but must be anchored in data, technical understanding and the real economics of extractive-sector investment.
According to him, much of the public debate around resource sovereignty has become disconnected from the financial and operational structure of modern mining.
He argued that calls for Ghana to “get more” from gold, bauxite, lithium and other mineral resources must first acknowledge the cost structure behind exploration, mine development, equipment, labour, procurement, financing and production risks.
“If a company produces 500,000 ounces, it does not mean the government simply takes 500,000 ounces into reserves,” he said, cautioning that such assumptions create misleading public expectations about how mining revenue is generated and shared.
Mr Boakye said mining is capital-intensive and high-risk, with investors often committing hundreds of millions of dollars before production begins. In many cases, he noted, companies must absorb exploration risk, raise long-term capital, import specialised equipment, develop mine infrastructure and manage operating volatility before profits are realised.
He further explained that between 70% and 80% of mining output revenues are typically absorbed by operational costs, taxes, royalties, wages, procurement, financing obligations and reinvestment before net profit is determined.
For him, that cost reality should not be ignored in Ghana’s public debate.
The ACEP Executive Director stressed that the real question should not be whether Ghana deserves more value from mining, but how that value is measured, retained and transformed into development outcomes.
He said the country must move beyond broad nationalist language and focus on measurable indicators such as local procurement retention, Ghanaian ownership structures, employment generation, community transformation, technology transfer and long-term domestic value capture.
“The arguments must not be made in a vacuum,” Mr Boakye argued, suggesting that without hard data, the debate risks becoming politically attractive but economically weak.
His intervention comes at a sensitive moment for Ghana’s mining sector, where recent policy decisions and public commentary have intensified discussion around resource sovereignty, local participation and investor confidence.
The debate has been sharpened by questions over whether Ghana should take a more assertive posture in the control of strategic mineral assets, including whether local companies should be given greater space in mining operations and whether the state is receiving enough fiscal and developmental returns from the sector.
But Mr Boakye warned that while resource nationalism may respond to genuine public frustration, it must not be allowed to become a substitute for clear policy design.
He said Ghana’s mining governance framework has already evolved over the years, moving from heavily foreign-dominated operations toward greater local participation in management, contracting, procurement and service delivery.
The challenge, he suggested, is to measure how far that evolution has gone, identify where leakages remain and design policy instruments that deepen Ghanaian participation without undermining the investment climate.
A mining policy built only on public anger may win political applause but could discourage long-term capital. A policy built on evidence, however, can increase Ghanaian participation while preserving the financing, technology and operational capacity required to sustain production.
Mr Boakye also called on government to urgently clarify its policy direction on resource nationalism, warning that uncertainty could weaken investor confidence at a time when Ghana is trying to consolidate macroeconomic stability following its IMF-supported programme and transition into the Policy Coordination Instrument framework.
For investors, policy ambiguity is often as damaging as policy hostility. Mining projects have long gestation periods, and companies need confidence that licensing, lease renewal, fiscal terms, ownership requirements and local content obligations will be applied transparently and predictably.
The country wants more value from mining. Communities want visible development. Citizens want stronger local ownership. Government needs fiscal revenue. But the sector also requires capital, technical expertise, exploration risk appetite and stable rules.
Mr Boakye’s argument is therefore not a rejection of resource sovereignty. It is a warning that sovereignty must be institutional, not rhetorical.
If Ghana wants to capture more value, it must improve local procurement systems, build domestic supplier capacity, strengthen royalty utilisation, deepen Ghanaian equity participation, improve geological data, support local manufacturing for mining inputs and ensure that mining communities see tangible benefits from mineral extraction.
It must also track how much value is actually retained locally, rather than relying on broad claims that foreign ownership alone explains underdevelopment in mining areas.
That point is particularly important because Ghana’s mining communities continue to raise concerns about infrastructure deficits, unemployment, environmental damage and weak social transformation despite decades of gold production.
For Mr Boakye, solving that problem requires serious policy work, not simplified narratives.
The deeper question emerging from the NorvanReports XSpace conversation is whether Ghana can design a mining model that combines national value capture with investor confidence.
That model would require government to be clear about what resource nationalism means in practical terms. Is it higher royalties? Greater state equity? More Ghanaian ownership? Mandatory local listing? Stronger community development obligations? More domestic processing? Reserved procurement? Or a combination of all these?
Without clarity, the debate risks creating uncertainty for investors and frustration for citizens.
Mr Boakye’s warning therefore lands at the centre of Ghana’s mining governance moment: the country cannot afford to remain a passive host of mineral extraction, but it also cannot afford to build policy on slogans.
The path forward must be evidence-led, technically sound and development-focused.
Ghana’s mineral wealth should deliver more for the country. But as Mr Boakye made clear, getting more value from mining requires understanding where value is created, where it leaks, who captures it, and what policy tools can shift the balance without collapsing the investment base on which production depends.
