The Minerals Commission has urged Northern Ashanti Mines Limited to pursue its legal challenge against the termination of its mining leases and prospecting licences in court rather than through public commentary.
The Commission accused the company of engaging in a media campaign following the termination of its mineral rights, insisting that the dispute should be resolved through the judicial process.
Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, October 29, the Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Commission, Isaac Tandoh, said the company had acknowledged receipt of the termination notice but had opted to challenge the decision in court while continuing to make public statements.
“The company duly acknowledged receipt of the termination notice and yet it has chosen the courts. So we advise that they should pursue the courts and not the court of public opinion,” he said.
Mr Tandoh rejected the company’s position that it was seeking dialogue, arguing that its decision to pursue legal action while engaging the media suggested otherwise.
“We state plainly, a company that sues the Honourable Minister, the Minerals Commission and the Attorney General is not a company that is seeking dialogue. It is a company seeking to litigate in court and in the media simultaneously. This is improper, and it is contemptuous of the judicial process,” he said.
The Commission’s comments follow an operation on Thursday, October 22, during which its officers, accompanied by military personnel, entered the company’s concession to enforce the termination of its mining lease.
The Commission cited the company’s failure to pay statutory fees and undertake meaningful mining operations for more than two years as grounds for the termination.
Mr Tandoh said the decision was taken in accordance with the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176), and the terms of the agreements with the company.
According to the Commission, Northern Ashanti Mines failed to pay US$8.33 million in outstanding Annual Mineral Right (AMR) fees for its mining leases covering the period from 2010 to 2025. It also owed US$49,928 in fees for prospecting licences covering 2019 to 2025.
Mr Tanoh maintained that the Commission had followed due process and given the company several opportunities to regularise its position.
“The Minerals Commission acted lawfully and followed due process at every stage. The company was given several opportunities to regularise its position, but they chose not to do so,” he said.
He added that the termination meant the mineral rights had reverted to the state, without absolving the company of liabilities incurred before the decision.
“Once the annual mineral rights were terminated, they reverted to the state as a lawful owner without prejudice to all the liabilities assumed by the company prior to termination, including the substantial indebtedness,” he said.
Mr Tandoh said the Commission would not be distracted by the company’s public statements, stressing that mineral resources belonged to the people of Ghana and that all holders of mineral rights were required to meet their statutory obligations.
