The Minerals Commission has clarified that Nawara Company Limited has no automatic right to retain the Nsuapemso mining concession in the Eastern Region following the revocation of its licence over approximately US$990,000 in outstanding annual mineral rights payments.
The Commission said the revocation followed Nawara’s failure to settle its outstanding financial obligations within a 120-day period granted by the regulator, dismissing the notion that the company could automatically retain its operating rights after losing its licence.
Frank Asare, Director of Mineral Titles at the Minerals Commission, said Nawara was formally notified in March 2025 to settle the outstanding payments but failed to meet the deadline, which expired in July that year.
Speaking to Kwame Nkrumah Tikese on Okay FM’s Ade Akye Abia, Mr Asare explained that further regulatory action culminated in the revocation of the company’s licence on September 3, 2025.
The Commission’s explanation places the company’s alleged financial default at the centre of the dispute over the concession, which has become the subject of competing claims and allegations of political interference.
US$990,000 Outstanding Payments at the Centre of Dispute
According to Mr Asare, Nawara was given 120 days to settle approximately US$990,000 in outstanding annual mineral rights payments after receiving formal notice in March 2025.
The deadline reportedly expired in July 2025 without the required payment, prompting further action that resulted in the revocation of the licence.
Mr Asare also disclosed that Martin Ayisi, the Commission’s former Chief Executive Officer, subsequently recommended to the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources that Nawara’s licence be revoked.
The Commission maintains that the decision was based on the company’s failure to meet its financial obligations within the stipulated period.
However, Nawara’s position on the alleged debt, including whether it disputes the amount or has evidence of payments made, remains important to establishing the full circumstances surrounding the revocation.
Commission Clarifies Status of Revoked Concession
The Minerals Commission has explained that mineral concessions belong to the state and that the revocation of an existing licence allows other eligible companies to apply for the rights, subject to the applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
Mr Asare stressed that Nawara’s former licence does not automatically entitle it to continue operating the Nsuapemso concession following the revocation.
He further clarified that the outstanding debt remains the responsibility of Nawara Company Limited and would not automatically be transferred to any company that subsequently obtains rights to operate the concession.
The Commission intends to continue considering applications for the concession unless the High Court issues an order directing it to restore Nawara’s rights.
The position places the legal status of the revoked licence at the heart of the dispute, particularly as other companies seek to operate the concession.
Companies Deny Political Interference Allegations
The controversy has also drawn businessman Alfred Mahama, brother of President John Dramani Mahama, into the public debate.
CMS-PRO and AA Southern Industries, which are seeking to operate the concession, have denied allegations that Alfred Mahama influenced the revocation of Nawara’s licence.
The companies maintain that the decision arose from the regulatory process and Nawara’s alleged failure to meet its financial obligations.
Their position aligns with the Minerals Commission’s stated explanation for the revocation, although allegations of political interference would require independent evidence to be conclusively established or dismissed.
The competing claims have heightened public interest in the circumstances surrounding the loss of Nawara’s licence and the process for determining which company should be granted the right to operate the concession.
Allegations of Violence and Looting Require Separate Investigation
Beyond the licensing dispute, allegations of violence and the looting of assets during the reported takeover of the Nsuapemso site have raised additional concerns.
These allegations require separate investigation to establish what happened, who was involved and whether any laws were breached.
The revocation of a mining licence over outstanding payments does not, by itself, determine whether subsequent actions at the concession were lawful.
The relevant authorities would therefore need to examine the available evidence and establish the circumstances surrounding the reported incidents.
Nawara’s Position Remains Important
The Minerals Commission’s account has established the regulator’s stated grounds for revoking Nawara’s licence: approximately US$990,000 in outstanding annual mineral rights payments and the company’s alleged failure to settle the amount within the 120-day period.
However, a complete assessment of the dispute requires Nawara’s response to the alleged debt, the notice issued in March 2025 and the subsequent revocation.
Any legal challenge by the company, relevant court orders and evidence concerning the reported takeover would also be important in determining the status of the concession.
For now, the Commission maintains that Nawara’s revoked licence does not automatically entitle it to retain the Nsuapemso concession, while other eligible applicants may pursue the rights in accordance with the law.
The final outcome will depend on the applicable regulatory framework, the status of any court proceedings and the evidence supporting the competing claims.
