Who Benefits If Damang Dies? The Risk of a Ghost Town and the Unanswered Questions from Ghana’s Minerals Commission
Ghana’s Damang Mine, operated by Gold Fields, now finds itself at the epicentre of a regulatory storm that could deliver a devastating blow to local livelihoods, investor sentiment, and the national economy. The government’s recent refusal to renew the mine’s lease has triggered more questions than answers in a country where mining remains a pillar of economic life.
The rejection of the lease, without a forensic audit of the mine’s operations, as we understand the Minerals Commission initially had formally written and informed Goldfields, raises troubling concerns about regulatory process and transparency.
NorvanReports has learnt from sources within the government that the Minerals Commission (MinCom), in communications over the past year, intended to conduct a forensic audit of the Damang Mine as a precursor to any decision on lease renewal. Even the newly appointed Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, Hon. Emmanuel Armah Kofi Buah, is said to have reiterated that the outcome of that audit would guide his final decision to either renew the lease or not.
And yet, with no known forensic audit conducted or made public, the lease has now been denied, and so we ask:
- Who stands to benefit from the sudden U-turn?
- Has due diligence truly been followed?
- If the state intends to repossess one of its most productive gold assets, why hasn’t it laid out a viable plan for continuity or transition?
- What alternative operator stands ready to fill the void, and more importantly, under what terms?
The Damang Mine is more than a site of extraction; it is the economic heartbeat of an entire township. It provides thousands of direct and indirect jobs, supports a fragile ecosystem of small businesses, and anchors social infrastructure in the Western Region. The abrupt withdrawal of its lease risks reducing the area to an economic wasteland, triggering a spiral of unemployment, social instability, and community disintegration.
Worryingly, the Minerals Commission’s actions or inactions could signal a shift in policy orientation that prioritises short-term political interests over long-term national development. The absence of a forensic audit, we at NorvanReports think, violates procedural norms and undermines the legitimacy of the entire decision. If we are serious about resource governance, why are we abandoning the very frameworks designed to protect the state and investors alike?
One must ask: who stands to benefit from this abrupt policy reversal?
- Is the lease being held back to pave the way for new players with shadowy backing?
- Could we be witnessing a quiet attempt at asset transfer under the guise of state interest?
- Or is this merely another chapter in Ghana’s long history of politicizing strategic economic assets, one where communities, workers, and the national treasury ultimately lose?
Let us also not forget the broader macroeconomic implications. Gold exports accounted for over $11.5 billion in revenue last year, more than half of Ghana’s total exports. Any disruption to production, even at a single mine like Damang, risks denting foreign exchange earnings, weakening the cedi, and undermining government revenues at a time when Ghana is still emerging from the shadows of a debt restructuring crisis.
For a country that has prided itself as a beacon for responsible mining in Africa, this situation threatens to fracture investor confidence. It sends a chilling message that even long-standing multinational investors with solid track records and community engagement are not immune from sudden policy shocks.
The Minerals Commission must come clean. Ghanaians deserve to know why the audit has not been done. Parliament must summon answers. Civil society must press for clarity. The people of Damang, who stand to lose the most, must not be reduced to a statistic in an opaque power game.
If we lose Damang, we lose more than a mine as a country, we lose trust, jobs, and perhaps even our global standing as a credible investment destination.
Because in the end, if the question is “who benefits?”, the answer must never be “not the people.”
