Bright Simons Questions Government’s Commitment to Genuine Resource Nationalism
Nearly four months into its tenure, the new government is facing scrutiny over what analysts say are inconsistencies in its resource nationalism policy, despite public commitments to reposition the state as a stronger steward of the country’s mineral and energy assets.
Bright Simons, Honorary Vice President of Accra-based think tank IMANI Africa, has questioned the administration’s ability to align its actions with its stated principles, warning that contradictions in the country’s resource governance approach are beginning to emerge.
“In a few days, four months would have elapsed since the new government came to power, add a couple of weeks and that will be 10% of its tenure exhausted. Are there signs of clear progress in governance?” Mr Simons quizzed in a post on X.
According to him, any meaningful appraisal of the administration’s performance would require a granular, sector-by-sector assessment, with particular attention to the extractives sector – a politically sensitive domain in which the state’s track record has long been marred by public discontent and opaque deal-making.
“Natural resource management is a big issue for many Ghanaians. There is a strong feeling that the country is being ripped off by everyone,” he observed, adding that beyond legal and technical nuances, public perceptions carry significant political weight.
The current administration has positioned itself as a champion of “Ghana First” policies. It has invoked the language of resource nationalism in its moves to assert greater state control in strategic assets—most notably in the nationalisation of the Damang gold mine and the establishment of a state-run gold trading entity, GoldBod.
However, civil society groups have raised questions about the transparency and long-term strategic value of those efforts, with Mr Simons revealing that sections of the civil society community have already had confrontations with the government over the initiatives.
What he described as a “muscular projection of Ghana First principles”, is being undermined by simultaneous efforts to revise and potentially dilute other resource contracts that were previously flagged for being overly generous to foreign interests.
Notably, the government is reportedly exploring new terms with Australia-based Atlantic Lithium – terms that Mr Simons claims could be even more favourable to the company than those agreed under the previous administration, which had been roundly criticised by activists and analysts alike.
“[The government] is twisting itself into knots trying to come up with reasons to justify why Atlantic Lithium should get even juicier terms,” he said.
In the oil and gas sector, similar contradictions are being flagged. The administration is said to be preparing to extend legacy contractual arrangements with Kosmos Energy in relation to the Jubilee oil field. These arrangements were signed before Ghana’s commercial oil discovery and contain terms that have since been surpassed by new petroleum legislation designed to secure better fiscal outcomes for the state.
Mr Simons noted that Kosmos and its partners are lobbying for a framework in which the outdated contracts remain in place until 2040, potentially locking Ghana into what many view as sub-optimal fiscal and regulatory regimes.
“On top of that, the government must sign off on various incentives for them to invest more money in the aging Jubilee field,” he added.
This, he argues, raises fundamental questions about the government’s commitment to the very principles it claims to uphold.
“Is this really resource nationalism? Isn’t the general rule that as a country shows clearly that there is money to be made from its resources, they also ‘de-risk’ their jurisdiction and can therefore start commanding better terms? Why then are resource companies demanding juicier and looser terms from Ghana,” he quizzed
