Northern Ashanti Mines sues over termination of Konongo lease

October 27, 2026

2 minutes read

Northern Ashanti Mines Limited has sued the Minerals Commission, the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources and the Attorney-General over the termination of its Konongo Mining Lease, seeking a court order to prevent a takeover of the concession.

The company is asking the High Court in Accra to restrain the respondents, their agents and workmen from interfering with its possession of the mine pending the determination of its application for judicial review.

It said it risked losing investments exceeding $110 million if the respondents were allowed to take over the concession before the court determined the legality of the termination.

According to the applicant, the Minerals Commission, acting on the instructions of the Minister, terminated its lease in a letter dated April 30, 2026, citing its alleged failure to remedy breaches within the prescribed statutory and regulatory timeframe.

The company, however, contended that it was never served with a notice of breach or given an opportunity to remedy any alleged breach or show cause why its mineral right should not be suspended or cancelled.

It said it subsequently wrote to the Minister through its lawyers on May 4 and petitioned him on May 20.

The applicant further claimed that on October 22, officials of the Lands Commission, accompanied by military personnel, visited its mine premises at Konongo and ordered its staff and workers to vacate the site, offices and residential accommodation by midday.

It also claimed to have received information that foreign companies, reportedly of Chinese origin, were in Ghana to take over the mine. It alleged that the deployment of military personnel and the eviction order were intended to facilitate the handover.

The company said it remained in possession of the concession, with its staff, equipment, exploration records, geological data, facilities, residential and office premises at the site, alongside ongoing processing plant installation.

It argued that the termination could only be effected in accordance with Section 68 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), and Regulation 200 of the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176).

The application raises questions about the Minerals Commission’s authority to terminate the lease and whether the required notice, remedy and show-cause procedures were followed.

The company maintained that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, arguing that the respondents would suffer no prejudice by awaiting the court’s decision, while it risked losing its concession and investment.

It further contended that using military force to enforce an administrative decision whose legality was before the court would be contrary to the rule of law and Articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.

BY MALIK SULLEMANA

SKIP THE QUEUE, TAP THE NEWS