- Manteaw Defends E&P’s Legal Right to Sell Damang Gold Amid Ratification Debate
Minerals governance expert Dr Steve Manteaw has defended the legal right of Engineers & Planners Limited and its subsidiary, Damang Gold Mine Limited, to sell gold produced from the Damang concession, arguing that their presence and operations are grounded in Ghana’s mining law despite the absence of parliamentary ratification.
His intervention follows questions raised by policy analyst Bright Simons over whether E&P and Damang Gold Mine Limited could lawfully sell gold from the concession before Parliament ratifies the mineral right. Simons had argued that until ratification, gold from the concession belonged to the state and not to E&P.
Dr Manteaw, a former Chairman of the Public Interest and Accountability Committee, acknowledged that the questions were legitimate but said they must be examined within Ghana’s legal and historical mining context.
According to him, neither the 1992 Constitution nor the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, Act 703, provides a specific timeframe within which parliamentary ratification of a mineral right must be obtained after a grant has been made. He further argued that the obligation to secure ratification rests with the Executive and Parliament, not the company granted the mineral right.
His central argument rests on Section 13 of Act 703, which outlines the procedure for granting mineral rights. Dr Manteaw said once the Minerals Commission recommends an application, the Minister notifies the applicant, the applicant accepts the offer, and the Minister formally grants the mineral right, the holder is entitled to enter the land covered by the grant.
“In the particular case of the Damang Gold Mine Limited, I am aware that every single step set out in Section 13 has been complied with and there are documents to prove the same,” Dr Manteaw wrote, adding that the presence of E&P and Damang Gold Mine Limited on the concession was therefore “well grounded in law”.
The Damang mine has become one of the most closely watched mining assets in Ghana following the government’s decision not to renew Gold Fields’ lease and the subsequent transition involving Damang Gold Mine Limited and Engineers & Planners.
The dispute has sharpened wider questions over mining lease renewals, parliamentary ratification, indigenous participation, due process and Ghana’s attempt to increase local control within the extractive sector.
Dr Manteaw argued that Ghana’s mining history offers important precedent. He said many large-scale mining companies, including foreign-owned operators, worked for years, in some cases for more than a decade, without parliamentary ratification of their leases while continuing to mine and export gold.
He cited a 2019 case in which two Members of Parliament sued the Attorney-General and 35 mining companies over operations without ratified leases. According to him, the government did not impose sanctions on the companies or demand a refund of proceeds from gold sales; instead, Parliament moved to ratify the leases to normalise the situation.
For Dr Manteaw, applying a different standard to an indigenous Ghanaian company would be inconsistent and unfair.
“I find it strange that, even though almost all the foreign mining companies operating in Ghana did not have their leases ratified before going into operations, and selling the bulk of their gold overseas, we saw no reason to put up the same argument,” he wrote.
He also rejected suggestions that the state’s interest in revenues from the Damang gold sales had been compromised. According to him, the proceeds have been retained in Ghana to allow for reconciliation after parliamentary ratification determines the state’s applicable share.
He added that the Ghana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative would pay attention to the matter in its annual reporting, providing an additional layer of public accountability.
Dr Manteaw further disclosed that E&P and Damang Gold Mine Limited had paid worker salaries and operational expenses associated with the mine since April 18, 2026, including payments made before the first gold sale from the mine.
The argument is significant because it moves the Damang debate from political suspicion to legal interpretation. At stake is whether mineral rights granted by the Minister, but awaiting parliamentary ratification create sufficient authority for operational continuity in circumstances where a mine could otherwise be shut down, workers displaced and production disrupted.
Dr Manteaw’s position is that Ghana’s legal framework has allowed such operational continuity historically, even though the absence of a clear ratification timeline creates a governance gap.
He therefore proposed three reforms: an amendment to Act 703 to impose a specific timeframe for parliamentary ratification of mineral rights; the removal of bureaucratic delays that force companies to begin operations ahead of ratification; and compensation mechanisms where strict enforcement of the law causes revenue losses because of administrative delays.
The Damang case is now likely to remain a key reference point in Ghana’s mining policy reset. Government wants to deepen local participation and value retention, while critics continue to insist that due process, legal clarity and investor confidence must not be sacrificed.
For E&P, Dr Manteaw’s intervention strengthens the argument that its role at Damang should not be treated as an unlawful intrusion but as a transaction operating within a legal and historical framework that Ghana has applied to both local and foreign mining companies.
For policymakers, however, the deeper lesson is that Ghana’s mining law needs greater precision. If parliamentary ratification is constitutionally required, the process must be time-bound, transparent and predictable.
Until that gap is closed, disputes such as Damang will continue to expose the tension between legal formality, operational necessity and public trust in Ghana’s management of mineral resources.
