- Minerals Commission Says Northern Ashanti Mine Rights Have Reverted to the State
A dispute over the termination of Northern Ashanti Mines Limited’s mineral rights has deepened after the company rejected the Minerals Commission’s claim that it owes the state more than US$8.38 million in statutory fees.
The disagreement, now before the courts, centres on three critical questions: how much the company owes, whether it received sufficient notice to remedy alleged breaches, and whether mine development activities qualify as meaningful mining operations under Ghana’s mining legislation.
The Minerals Commission maintains that it lawfully terminated the company’s mining leases and prospecting licence after Northern Ashanti Mines failed to pay annual mineral-right fees and did not conduct meaningful mining operations for more than two years.
Northern Ashanti Mines, formerly associated with Owere Mines, disputes that account. It argues that most of the debt cited by the regulator is a legacy obligation attributable to the mine’s previous operator, while its own outstanding balance is considerably lower.
According to the Commission, the company acquired a mining lease covering 595 cadastral blocks in January 2010. Under Section 24 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), and the terms of the lease, annual mineral-right fees were payable to the state.
The regulator says unpaid fees on the mining leases accumulated to US$8.33 million between 2010 and 2025. It also cites US$49,928 in outstanding fees on prospecting licences covering 2019 to 2025, bringing the combined liability to approximately US$8.38 million.
On April 14, 2025, the Commission says it issued notices requiring the company to remedy the breaches under Section 68(2) of Act 703 and Regulation 200(3) of the Minerals and Mining Regulations, 2012.
It maintains that Northern Ashanti Mines failed to pay within the stipulated period and was given sufficient opportunity to regularise its position.
The regulator also alleges that the company failed to undertake meaningful mining operations for more than two years, constituting a separate breach under Section 69(1) of Act 703.
After the alleged breaches remained unresolved, the Commission notified the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources on April 7, 2026. The minister approved the issuance of the termination notice on April 24, with the Commission proceeding to terminate the mineral rights on April 30.
“The law is the law. Mineral rights are not an inheritance,” the Commission said, insisting that indigenous ownership does not exempt a company from its statutory and operational responsibilities.
It said the terminated rights had consequently reverted to the state, although the termination did not extinguish liabilities incurred by the company before the action.
“The Commission reserves the right and shall pursue the company to pay all the sums it owes to the State,” it stated.
Northern Ashanti Mines has, however, described the regulator’s account as containing “falsehoods, untruths and half-truths.”
The company says an audit communication received from the Commission in May 2026 placed its outstanding liability at approximately US$2.4 million. It argues that the US$8.3 million figure represents a legacy obligation associated with Owere Mines, the previous operator.
Northern Ashanti Mines also says it has paid more than US$1 million towards its obligations and requested additional time to complete payment because it was still developing the mine and constructing processing infrastructure.
The company maintains that it had not started commercial gold production or generated the revenue required to repay the outstanding amount immediately. It says the Commission did not communicate any rejection of its proposed payment arrangement before terminating the rights.
The competing figures expose an important unresolved issue: whether the current rights holder legally assumed all the historical liabilities attached to the concession or whether some obligations should remain with the previous operator.
That issue cannot be resolved simply by comparing the two numbers. It will depend on the terms governing the transfer of the mineral rights, the treatment of existing liabilities during the transaction and the Commission’s own accounting records.
The company also disputes the regulator’s claim that proper notice was served. It says it did not receive a notice identifying the statutory breaches before the April 30 termination letter, although that letter reportedly referred to an earlier notice.
The Commission insists that it followed every stage of the prescribed process.
Northern Ashanti Mines has equally rejected the allegation that it failed to undertake meaningful mining operations. It argues that developing a mine, constructing a processing plant and stockpiling ore are integral parts of responsible mining, even before commercial production begins.
The company points to permits issued by the Commission on February 7 and February 17, 2026, for processing-plant construction and mining activities. Both permits were reportedly valid until December 31, 2026. It says its fleet was operating day and night under those approvals.
This creates another substantive legal question: whether “meaningful mining operations” should be interpreted narrowly as active commercial mineral production or more broadly to include authorised mine development and construction.
The Commission must explain how permits issued in February 2026 align with its conclusion that the company had failed to conduct meaningful operations. Northern Ashanti Mines, meanwhile, must demonstrate that the permitted activities were actually undertaken at a scale consistent with its lease obligations.
The case matters beyond the immediate ownership of the Konongo assets. Ghana wants to expand indigenous participation in mining, but local ownership cannot substitute for regulatory compliance. Equally, enforcement must be transparent and predictable to prevent legitimate regulatory action from appearing like an arbitrary transfer of valuable assets.
With the matter now before the courts, documentary evidence will be decisive. Payment records, notices, transfer agreements, permits and operational reports must establish whether the termination represented lawful enforcement or a premature action against a developing Ghanaian-owned mine.
Until those questions are settled, the Konongo dispute will remain more than a disagreement over US$8.38 million. It will be a test of how Ghana balances firm regulation, due process and its ambition to build credible indigenous ownership within the mining industry.
