The Minerals Commission has strongly rejected allegations by Narawa Company Limited that its mining leases were unlawfully terminated and its operations handed over to another individual, insisting that the decision was justified by the company’s failure to pay outstanding annual mineral rights fees amounting to US$909,127.79.
In a press release dated October 20, 2026, the Commission described Narawa’s allegations as false and misleading, arguing that they misrepresent the facts and the legal procedures that led to the termination of the company’s mining rights over the Nsutam and Osiem mining concessions.
The Commission maintained that the termination was carried out in accordance with the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), and the applicable mining lease agreements, dismissing claims that it had wrongfully or forcibly taken the concessions from the company.
$909,127 Debt Triggered Termination Process
According to the Commission, Narawa held the Nsutam and Osiem mining leases and was legally required to pay annual mineral rights fees under Section 24 of Act 703 and Clause 27 of its mining lease agreements with the Government of Ghana.
However, the company allegedly defaulted on its payment obligations, accumulating outstanding fees totalling US$909,127.79.
The Commission said it subsequently issued notices to remedy the breach in accordance with Section 68(2) of Act 703 and Regulation 200(3) of the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176).
It maintained that Narawa failed to settle the outstanding payments within the stipulated period, prompting the Commission to initiate the process to terminate the leases.
The statement disclosed that the Commission recommended termination to the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources in a letter dated July 29, 2025.
The Minister approved the recommendation on August 19, 2025, after which a formal notice of termination was issued to Narawa on September 3, 2025.
The Commission cited this sequence of events as evidence that the decision was not arbitrary but followed the established legal and administrative procedures.
Narawa Has No Valid Mining Rights — Commission
The Commission further stated that, following the termination, Narawa no longer holds any valid mineral rights, interests or entitlements over the Nsutam and Osiem concession areas.
It explained that the mineral rights had reverted to the State, warning that any mining activities undertaken by Narawa on the concessions after the termination date would constitute illegal mining.
The Commission also denied authorising or permitting any unauthorised invasion of the affected areas.
According to the statement, the State subsequently granted new mineral rights over the concessions to two different entities, which it said were operating within the confines of the law and in compliance with the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
The clarification comes amid allegations by Narawa that the termination of its leases was unlawful and that its operations had been handed over to another individual.
Arbitration Proceedings Still Pending
Despite its firm defence of the termination, the Commission acknowledged that the dispute remains unresolved through the legal process.
It disclosed that Narawa instituted arbitration proceedings on December 12, 2025, challenging the legality of the termination of its mineral rights.
The matter remains pending, and the Commission said the termination would remain in full force and effect until a final determination is made.
It consequently criticised Narawa’s resort to public allegations while the substantive dispute is before a competent adjudicatory body, describing such actions as improper and misleading.
However, the Commission’s position represents its account of the dispute, and the ultimate determination of the contested termination will depend on the outcome of the pending proceedings.
Commission Rejects Claims of Improper Conduct
The Minerals Commission reiterated its commitment to the transparent and lawful administration of Ghana’s mineral resources, insisting that it would not be swayed by what it described as attempts to misinform the public or circumvent due legal process.
The dispute centres on two key issues: whether Narawa’s failure to pay the outstanding mineral rights fees justified the termination of its leases, and whether the subsequent grant of new mineral rights over the concessions was conducted lawfully.
While the Commission insists that the termination followed due process, the pending arbitration is expected to address Narawa’s challenge to the decision.
Until a final determination is reached, the Commission maintains that the termination remains valid and that the company has no enforceable mineral rights over the affected concessions.