A controversial financing agreement between Heath Goldfields Ltd and Trafigura is drawing scrutiny over concerns that the deal may have been executed without prior government approval, despite involving critical national mining assets in Ghana.
At the center of the issue is a $65 million secured financing facility provided by Trafigura to support the restart of oxide operations at the Bogoso–Prestea mine. While earlier narratives portrayed the arrangement as a multi-billion-dollar gold deal, official disclosures confirm it is in fact a loan to be repaid through future gold deliveries.
Loan Backed by Strategic Assets
Under the agreement, Heath Goldfields has pledged extensive collateral, including:
Mining leases
Processing plants and equipment
Bank accounts
Insurance proceeds
Key operational contracts
Trafigura has secured fixed and floating charges over these assets, along with rights to revenues and contractual proceeds—effectively placing the mine’s operational base under lender control.
Approval Comes After the Deal
A key concern lies in how regulatory approval is handled. The use of mining leases as collateral typically requires a “no objection” from the relevant government authority. However, in this case:
The agreement does not make that approval a condition precedent
Heath Goldfields is instead required to obtain it within 60 days after execution
This means the financing facility could be:
Disbursed
Operational
Legally binding
before the State has formally approved the encumbrance of the mining leases.
Such a structure effectively reverses the standard regulatory process, where approval is expected to come before—not after—a transaction involving strategic national resources.
Risk of Losing Control
The agreement also grants Trafigura extensive enforcement powers in the event of default. These include the ability to:
Take possession of assets
Sell mining properties and equipment
Appoint a receiver to manage operations
Collect revenues directly
Failure to meet repayment obligations could therefore result in loss of operational control of the Bogoso–Prestea mine, raising broader concerns about national oversight.
Misleading Valuation Claims
Compounding the issue are earlier claims that the deal was worth up to $2.8 billion, based on projected future gold production. However:
The gold has not yet been produced
Its value depends on future output and market prices
The agreement itself reflects only a $65 million loan
This has led observers to warn that the public narrative may be overstating the scale and benefits of the transaction.
Growing Calls for Oversight
The combination of:
Heavy collateralization of key assets
Post-execution regulatory approval
And inflated public valuations
has prompted calls for greater transparency and stricter oversight.
Critics argue that allowing such agreements to proceed before formal government approval risks undermining regulatory authority and could expose strategic national assets to unintended control.