The Minerals Commission has defended its termination of the mining leases and prospecting licences held by Northern Ashanti Mines Limited, formerly Ower Mines, accusing the company of accumulating more than US$8.38 million in unpaid statutory fees and failing to undertake meaningful mining operations on its concession for more than two years.

The Commission said the decision followed repeated opportunities for the company to remedy the breaches, insisting that the revocation was carried out in accordance with the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), and the applicable mining regulations.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, the regulator disclosed that Northern Ashanti Mines had challenged the termination in court, setting the stage for a legal dispute over the State’s decision to withdraw the mineral rights.

The Commission maintained that the company’s obligations under the law were not optional and that its status as an indigenous Ghanaian business did not exempt it from paying statutory fees or conducting meaningful mining operations.

According to the Commission, Northern Ashanti Mines acquired a mining lease covering 595 cadastral blocks in January 2010. Under Section 24 of Act 703 and the terms of its lease agreement, the company was required to pay Annual Mineral Right (AMR) fees.

However, the company allegedly accumulated US$8.33 million in unpaid fees on its mining leases between 2010 and 2025, in addition to US$49,928 owed on prospecting licences covering the period from 2019 to 2025.

The total outstanding amount was more than US$8.38 million.

The Commission said it formally notified the company of the breaches on April 14, 2025, through Notices to Remedy Breach issued under Section 68(2) of Act 703 and Regulation 200(3) of the Minerals and Mining Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176).

The notices required the company to settle the outstanding fees and address the identified breaches within the stipulated period.

According to the regulator, the company failed to comply.

The Commission cited a second major concern, saying its assessment showed that Northern Ashanti Mines had not undertaken meaningful mining operations on the concession for more than two years, contrary to Section 69(1) of Act 703.

It said the company was given an opportunity to regularise its position but failed to remedy the breaches, prompting the Commission to initiate the process to terminate its mineral rights.

The regulator said it notified the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources on April 7, 2026, and requested that a notice of termination be served on the company.

The Minister approved the issuance of the notice on April 24, 2026, after which the Commission proceeded with the termination process on April 30, 2026.

The Commission insisted that the decision was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but rather the outcome of a process undertaken under the applicable legal framework.

“Once granted, a holder must abide by the rules, whether they are an indigenous company or not, and this includes the payment of statutory fees and the undertaking of meaningful mining operations,” the statement said.

The Commission further explained that the termination had returned the affected mineral rights to the State but did not absolve Northern Ashanti Mines of liabilities incurred before the decision.

It said it would continue efforts to recover the outstanding fees owed to the State and take measures to protect the affected assets against encroachment and other unlawful activities.

“The Commission reserves the right and shall pursue the company to pay all the sums it owes to the State,” it stated.

The regulator also confirmed that Northern Ashanti Mines had initiated legal proceedings to challenge the termination after acknowledging receipt of the notice.

It criticised what it described as the company’s media campaign over the dispute, arguing that public statements on the matter risked undermining the judicial process while the case remained before the courts.

The dispute is now before the courts, with the Commission maintaining that the termination was justified by the company’s alleged failure to meet its statutory obligations. The legal challenge will determine the issues contested by the parties.