US$8.33m debt: Minerals Commission explains why Northern Ashanti Mines lost mining rights

The Minerals Commission has justified its decision to terminate the mining leases and prospecting licences of Northern Ashanti Mines Limited, formerly known as Owere Mines, accusing the company of failing to honour its financial obligations and leaving its mining concession largely inactive for more than two years.

According to the Commission, the company accumulated millions of dollars in unpaid statutory fees despite receiving notices and opportunities to address the breaches.

The explanation follows an operation on October 22, 2026, during which officials of the Minerals Commission, accompanied by military personnel, entered the company's concession to enforce the termination of its mineral rights.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, the Commission maintained that its actions were consistent with Ghana's mining laws and the terms governing the company's mineral rights.

Company accused of owing millions in statutory fees

The Minerals Commission disclosed that Northern Ashanti Mines had accumulated outstanding Annual Mineral Right (AMR) fees amounting to US$8.33 million on its mining leases between 2010 and 2025.

The company also allegedly owed an additional US$49,928 in fees relating to its prospecting licences for the period between 2019 and 2025.

According to the Commission, these financial obligations remained unpaid despite formal notices issued to the company.

It explained that on April 14, 2025, Northern Ashanti Mines was served with notices requiring it to remedy the breaches within a specified period.

However, the company allegedly failed to comply with the directives.

Beyond the unpaid fees, the Commission accused Northern Ashanti Mines of failing to undertake meaningful mining operations on its concession for more than two years.

It maintained that the prolonged inactivity amounted to a breach of Section 69(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703).

How the mining rights were terminated

The Commission explained that following the company's failure to address the identified breaches, it initiated the statutory process for terminating the mineral rights.

On April 7, 2026, the Commission formally notified the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources and sought approval to proceed with the termination.

The Minister subsequently granted approval on April 24, paving the way for the Commission to terminate the company's mining leases and prospecting licences on April 30, 2026.

The Commission maintained that the process complied with Act 703, the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176), and the relevant contractual obligations.

It rejected suggestions that the termination was arbitrary or undertaken without giving the company an opportunity to comply with the law.

According to the Commission, holders of mineral rights are required to meet their financial and operational obligations regardless of whether they are locally owned or foreign companies.

Mineral rights revert to the State

Following the termination, the Minerals Commission maintains that the mineral rights previously held by Northern Ashanti Mines have reverted to the State.

It explained that the termination does not extinguish the company's outstanding financial obligations to the government.

The Commission consequently reserved the right to pursue recovery of the unpaid statutory fees and other liabilities.

It also defended the government's decision to secure the concession following the termination.

According to the Commission, the State has a responsibility to protect mineral assets that have reverted to it and prevent their occupation or exploitation by unauthorised persons.

Company challenges termination in court

Meanwhile, Northern Ashanti Mines has commenced legal proceedings against the State, challenging the termination of its mining leases and prospecting licences.

The Commission acknowledged the pending legal action but insisted that the company had received and acknowledged the termination notice before approaching the court.

It also criticised the company's public statements concerning the dispute, accusing it of presenting misleading accounts of the events surrounding the termination.

The Commission maintained that the matter should be addressed through the judicial process now that the company has initiated legal action.

It reaffirmed its commitment to enforcing the country's mining laws and ensuring that holders of mineral rights comply with their statutory obligations.

The legality of the termination remains the subject of the company's court challenge, and the Commission's account of the alleged breaches represents its position in the dispute.