Kofi Bentil: Northern Ashanti Mines License Revocation Violates Ghana Act 703

• Kofi Bentil alleges that politically connected individuals are seizing Ghanaian-owned mines without due process, citing Northern Ashanti Mines as an example.
• Northern Ashanti Mines had invested over US$100 million and held valid permits before its license was revoked.
• Bentil claims the Minerals Commission failed to follow Section 68 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), which requires an opportunity for remedial action.
• The Commission cited over US$8.38 million in disputed outstanding statutory fees as the reason for the revocation.
• This case raises concerns about investor protection and the consistency of Ghana's policy on local ownership in the mining sector.

Bentil emphasized that any genuine commitment to promoting local ownership must be coupled with robust protection for investors' rights and an unwavering adherence to legal and regulatory frameworks.

Kofi Bentil, Vice President of IMANI Africa, has raised serious concerns regarding a pattern of politically connected individuals, often referred to as Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), allegedly seizing control of Ghanaian-owned mining operations. He warns that these actions are occurring without due process, potentially undermining Ghana's efforts to foster greater local participation within its vital mining sector. Bentil highlighted the cases of Northern Ashanti Mines and Adamus Mines as prime examples of this troubling trend, which he observes among indigenous companies operating outside the large-scale segment typically dominated by foreign investors.

Bentil, who supports initiatives aimed at increasing Ghanaian ownership in the mining industry, argues that local investors should be encouraged to develop mineral assets rather than face threats to their investments. He revealed that he has reviewed documents pertaining to Northern Ashanti Mines, including permits issued by the Minerals Commission in 2026, which authorized the company to continue its development activities. These documents also indicated that Northern Ashanti Mines had invested more than US$100 million in developing its mine before its license was ultimately revoked.

The core of the dispute surrounding Northern Ashanti Mines centers on the Minerals Commission's decision to revoke its license, a move that Kofi Bentil contends did not adhere to the established procedures outlined in Section 68 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703). The Commission has cited outstanding statutory fees, reportedly exceeding US$8.38 million, as a primary reason for its action. However, Bentil asserts that he has seen documentation presenting different figures for the alleged debt, along with correspondence from the company actively disputing the amount owed.

Bentil further argued that even if the outstanding fees were definitively established, such a situation should typically lead to negotiations and the implementation of a payment plan, especially considering a recent change in the mine's ownership. He firmly rejected the notion that a notice issued by the Minerals Commission in April 2025 constituted proper legal notice under Section 68. According to Bentil, the law explicitly requires that a company be afforded a reasonable opportunity to rectify any breaches before its license can be revoked, a crucial step he claims was entirely overlooked in this instance.

This specific dispute over the Northern Ashanti Mines license revocation extends into the wider national conversation about local ownership and control of Ghana's mineral resources. While Kofi Bentil champions the acquisition of significant mining assets by Ghanaian investors, even expressing hope for Ibrahim Mahama's potential acquisition of significant mining assets, a sentiment that has since seen his company, Engineers & Planners, take over the Damang mine from Gold Fields, he cautions that the treatment of mid-level local mining companies like Northern Ashanti Mines raises serious questions about the consistency of the country's approach to indigenization. The alleged lack of due process in this case could deter future local investment and participation.

Bentil emphasized that any genuine commitment to promoting local ownership must be coupled with robust protection for investors' rights and an unwavering adherence to legal and regulatory frameworks. The Minerals Commission has since defended its decision to terminate Northern Ashanti Mines' license, stating it followed due process, while Northern Ashanti Mines has initiated legal proceedings to challenge the termination. This legal dispute remains a critical factor in resolving the disagreement and will significantly influence perceptions of investor security within Ghana's mining sector.

Lawyers and compliance officers in Ghana's mining sector should scrutinize Minerals Commission actions regarding license revocations, particularly ensuring strict adherence to Section 68 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) and due process. This case highlights the importance of challenging arbitrary decisions and advising clients on investor protection against politically influenced takeovers, even amidst disputes over statutory fees.

Source: Original reporting via Prince Adu-Owusu.