Ing. Wisdom Gomashie is the author of this article
A brief academic and industry expedition into the practical application and regulatory interpretation of Section 14 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703).
1.On 20 July 2026, the High Court of Ghana convicted Chairman Wontumi and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment for offences including the alleged assignment of a mineral right to a third party without the required ministerial approval.
2.As a Ghanaian mining professional, the direction of the prosecution and the interpretation of the mining laws raised serious concerns for me, not only about the particular case, but also about Ghana’s mining investment climate, regulatory certainty, and the proper role of specialised mining regulatory institutions.
3.I therefore appeared as a defence witness in the case. My position before the Court was clear: a mineral-right holder, such as Akonta Mining, does not necessarily assign its mineral right merely because it engages a third party to undertake work within its concession, including mining-related activities.
4.Following my testimony, the entire NDC communications machinery was deployed against me politically, and attempts were made to discredit my professional position. However, facts are stronger than propaganda, and the technical position I presented before the Court remains a matter of record.
5.On 31 July 2026, the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP) issued its position on the Akonta Mining judgment under the title:
“Protecting Ghana’s Mineral Rights Regime: Policy Reflections on the Akonta Mining Judgment.”
ACEP expressed the view that the judgment could reconfigure Ghana’s mining laws by effectively placing the courts above the regulators.
ACEP argued that Section 14 of Act 703 should not automatically be used to treat unlawful operational conduct as an assignment of a mineral right.
It further stressed the need to distinguish unlawful conduct from legitimate contract-mining and mine-support-service arrangements.
ACEP also cautioned that an expansive interpretation of Section 14 could undermine regulatory oversight, legal certainty, and Ghana’s mining governance framework.
6.On 6 August 2026, I commenced what I describe as an Academic and Industry Expedition into the Assignment of Mineral Rights in Ghana’s Mining Sector.
I did not undertake this exercise to prove a predetermined position. My objective was to understand, from the institutions responsible for administering Ghana’s mining laws, how the assignment of mineral rights operates in practice, particularly following the judicial interpretation arising from the Akonta Mining case.
I already understood that a mining-lease holder may engage contractors and registered mine-support-service providers to undertake activities on its behalf.
Section 59 of Act 703, the Minerals and Mining (Support Services) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2174), and the broader local-content framework provide the regulatory basis for such arrangements.
7.My central question was therefore:
If the dealings between a mineral-right holder and a registered mine-support-service provider potentially amount to an assignment of the mineral right, where are the corresponding deeds of assignment and ministerial approvals?
8.On 6 August 2026, I wrote to the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources and the Minerals Commission. Among other things, I requested the deeds of assignment between 11 randomly selected mining companies and the mine-support-service providers undertaking contract mining on their behalf. (Find attached the request letter.)
I deliberately focused on contract mining because it goes to the very core of mining operations—the principal activity for which a mining lease is granted.
The Ministry and Minerals Commission responses
9.On 14 August 2026, the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources forwarded my request to the Minerals Commission for a response. (Find a copy of the letter attached.)
10.In a letter dated 20 August 2026, the Minerals Commission responded to my request, although the letter was delivered only two days ago.
Whatever disagreements may have arisen over the characterisation of my request, what matters most is the substantive regulatory clarification contained in the Commission’s response.
Six cardinal points from the Minerals Commission’s response
The Commission stated:
1. “There are no Deeds of Assignment between the mineral right holders and support service providers.”
This reinforces a fundamental point established by regulatory practice: a mineral-right holder does not need to assign its mineral right merely because it engages a third party to provide operational services.
An assignment arises when the holder actually intends to transfer or assign the mineral right. The mere engagement of a support-service provider does not, by itself, constitute an assignment.
2. “Section 14 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) deals with assignment of mineral rights and not contract mining.”
The Minerals Commission has therefore expressly clarified that mining-support-service activities, such as contract mining, are not synonymous with the assignment of a mineral right.
Even where a mineral-right holder engages a registered mine-support-service provider to undertake contract mining, the Commission’s position is that the arrangement does not, by itself, constitute an assignment.
3. “A misapprehension of the registration of companies as support service providers and the assignment of mineral rights.”
I respectfully disagree with the Commission’s characterisation of my request as a “misapprehension.”
The request was deliberately designed to test and clarify the relationship among support-service registration, contract mining, and the assignment of mineral rights, particularly following the interpretation of Section 14 in the Wontumi/Akonta Mining matter.
The Commission also appeared uncomfortable with the aspect of my request concerning the role played by PW4 in the Wontumi trial. Nevertheless, the substantive clarification provided remains important.
4.The Commission explained that, “under Section 59 of Act 703 and Regulation 1 of the Minerals and Mining (Support Services) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2174), a person may register with the Commission as a mine-support-service provider to provide relevant services to a mineral-right holder.”
This is an important regulatory clarification. The Commission confirms that the law expressly permits mine-support-service providers to render services to mineral-right holders.
This raises a fundamental question: if the law recognises this category of service provision, why should engaging such a provider automatically be treated as an assignment of the underlying mineral right, instead of being considered within the statutory framework governing support services?
5. “Distinguishable from and should not be confused with the assignment of mineral rights for which the Minister’s prior written approval is required in accordance with Section 14 of Act 703.”
This is another significant clarification. The Commission itself draws a clear legal distinction between the provision of support services and the assignment of a mineral right. I associate myself with this position.
The critical question is whether the facts of a particular arrangement demonstrate an actual assignment of the mineral right or merely the engagement of a third party to provide services to the mineral-right holder.
Why, therefore, was Wontumi not charged with engaging a person without a mine-support-service-provider licence, but rather with the assignment of a mineral right?
Most importantly, the Commission concluded:
6. “A mineral right holder does not, by engaging the services of a support service provider for contract mining, assign its mineral right to that contract miner.”
This is where my mission was accomplished.
The regulator has now placed on record the very clarification I set out to obtain: engaging a registered support-service provider to undertake contract mining or other mining services does not, by that engagement alone, amount to an assignment of the mineral right.
The ACEP–Minerals Commission convergence
12.What makes this development particularly significant is the convergence between ACEP’s position and the subsequent clarification provided by the Minerals Commission. This convergence reinforces my argument.
13.ACEP cautioned against automatically converting unlawful operational conduct into an assignment under Section 14. It called for the distinction between operational misconduct and legitimate contract-mining and support-service arrangements to be preserved.
14.The Minerals Commission has now confirmed that contract mining and mine-support services are distinguishable from the assignment of mineral rights.
Closing remarks
15.This RTI exercise does not, by itself, establish the innocence or guilt of any person involved in the Akonta Mining case. Neither does it overturn the Court’s judgment at this time.
16.What it establishes is an important regulatory proposition: the Minerals Commission itself distinguishes contract mining and mine-support services from the assignment of a mineral right.
17.The Commission’s response therefore provides a legitimate basis for examining whether the facts relied upon in a particular prosecution satisfy the legal requirements of an assignment under Section 14, or whether the conduct in question is instead an operational or regulatory matter governed by other provisions of the mining laws.
My position
18.My objective is not to weaken the demand for accountability in the Akonta Mining matter. However, enforcement must operate within the statutory framework established by Parliament.
19.Ghana’s mining industry cannot operate effectively in an environment where legitimate contractual and operational arrangements can be retrospectively transformed into assignments of mineral rights without a clear legal and evidential basis.
20.Investors need certainty. Mineral-right holders need certainty. Contractors need certainty. Regulators need certainty. Ultimately, the State needs certainty in the administration and protection of Ghana’s mineral resources.
21.My RTI exercise was not about winning an argument. I embarked on this Academic and Industry Expedition because I wanted to understand the law beyond political narratives.
22.Truly, Chairman Wontumi is a political prisoner.
I asked the regulator a question. The regulator answered. The answer is now on record.
Thank you.
Copyright © 1994 - 2026 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
