Amid the current government’s agenda to indigenize Ghana’s natural wealth, there is a growing call on how the state is undertaking the agenda, which raises serious concerns.
Policy analyst Bright Simons is raising red flags over how the government is pushing the agenda for local ownership of strategic natural resources. He argues that the country’s resource indigenization drive is high on rhetoric, driven by emotions and nationalistic sentiments, but dangerously thin on execution and a clear path.
During a recent webinar on the issues about the Bogoso-Prestea Gold Mine, Bright Simons maintained that simply transferring assets into local hands does not automatically guarantee economic empowerment.
The Promise vs the Reality
Successive governments, including the current one, have championed the idea of “Ghanaian ownership” of key assets, mines, oil fields, and infrastructure, as a path to economic sovereignty.
Even some economists and analysts have raised concerns that it is not safe for all strategic assets of the country to be in the hands of foreigners.
In an attempt to push the agenda of handing over key assets to Ghanaians, Bright Simons has observed that what sounds powerful in speeches often falls apart in practice. The problem is not the vision; it’s the absence of a credible roadmap.
In his words, Ghana has mastered the art of “aggregating the vision”, big, inspiring goals, while failing to “disaggregate the execution”, the detailed, disciplined steps required to achieve them.
“We are big on the big vision; we want local ownership of mines, but when it comes to the policy dynamics of how you actually attain it, which requires systematic and methodical planning, then we lose sight,” he maintained.
The Trafigura–Heath Deal as a Case Study
Bright Simons points to the controversial arrangement between Trafigura and Heath Goldfields as a textbook example.
On the surface, the deal appears to support local participation of a Ghana-linked company operating a major gold asset. But beneath that narrative lies a more troubling structure.
He recounts that the $65 million loan between Heath and Trafigura is tied to the delivery of gold worth billions and exclusive offtake terms that shut out competing buyers.
There are extensive protections that insulate the foreign financier in nearly all scenarios.
For Bright Simons, this kind of financing deal entered into by Heath with Ghana’s assets valued at around $25 billion is an indication that the government failed to conduct due diligence on the technical and financial capacity of the local mining company.
To Simons, this is not genuine local empowerment. It is local ownership in name, but external control in substance.
A Deeper Signal: Lack of Confidence in the System
The policy analyst reveals that the shortfalls and weaknesses in the country’s agenda are sending wrong signals to foreign investors.
This, he says, is manifest in the Heath-Trafigura financing deal. The stringent conditions imposed by Trafigura suggest limited trust in Ghana’s regulatory environment.
It also signals that the investor fears that agreements may not be honored or could be disrupted, and moreover, a need to “lock in” protections against potential instability. In blunt terms, the structure implies that investors are pricing in the risk of Ghana “messing up.”
“The way it’s been structured is such that it protects Trafigura in every scenario, and it suggests that they have little confidence, very little confidence, in the Ghanaian jurisdiction, because of the demands they are making. It’s as if they really expect the jurisdiction to mess up,” Bright Simons remarked.
A Pattern Beyond One Deal
Simons links this issue to a broader pattern of contentious decisions across the sector, including the current disputes involving Adamus Resources Limited.
He also cited the issues surrounding Springfield Exploration and Production as another example of an indigenization agenda without proper direction.
In each case, he suggests, policy inconsistency and abrupt decisions have eroded confidence in the jurisdiction.
These issues, he says, is earning Ghana the perception of a place where rules are fluid and long-term planning is uncertain.
The “Katanomics” Problem
At the core of Simons’ argument is what he calls a “Katanomics” mindset. He explains it as an approach that prioritizes bold narratives over detailed planning. He says it shows up in familiar ways, such as celebrating local ownership without defining governance standards.
It also involves transferring assets without ensuring managerial and financial capacity, and ignoring the sequencing required to build sustainable control.
The result is a gap between intention and outcome, where policies meant to empower instead create new dependencies and vulnerabilities.
“We always get trapped in this emotive language and inability to look carefully at detail, which is what I call the katanomics framework,” he noted.
He continued, “We aggregate the vision, but we cannot disaggregate the execution pathway, we cannot disaggregate the sequencing, we cannot disaggregate the steps we have to take to achieve real local ownership. And that’s what has happened here.”
The Bottomline
For Bright Simons and many other analysts, Ghana’s ambition to control its natural resources is widely shared and deeply justified. But he argues that ambition alone is not enough.
Without a clear policy direction and careful execution, the country risks turning a powerful idea into a costly illusion, where ownership is proclaimed, but real control slips away.
