A major debate is brewing over the legal fallout of the Akonta Mining judgment, involving Bernard Antwi Boasiako, widely known as Chairman Wontumi.
Benjamin Boakye, the Executive Director of the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP), is raising critical questions about whether the court correctly understood how mining rights are legally handed over in Ghana.
At the center of the debate, Ben Boakye believes, is the requirement that the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources’ signature is critical in mineral assignment.
The Problematic Missing Signature
According to Boakye, the court’s decision could be “problematic” because it suggests that a mining right can be “assigned” or transferred to someone else just by looking at what was happening on the ground.
However, Ghana’s Minerals and Mining Act (Section 14) is very strict about this. It states that no mineral right can be transferred or “dealt in” without the prior written approval of the Minister.
Ben Boakye argues that if the Minister didn’t sign a paper saying the rights were transferred, then legally, they weren’t. He explains that “Section 14 expressly recognises written ministerial approval as the legally effective mechanism for altering the relationship between the State and the concession holder.”
Without this formal paper trail, the State still recognizes the original license holder as the one in charge.
Bad Behavior vs. Legal Ownership
A key part of Boakye’s reasoning is that the law must distinguish between “operational misconduct”, which is breaking rules while mining, and a “transfer of rights”, which is handing over the legal ownership.
Just because a company allows a third party to mine on its land, even if that mining is illegal, it does not mean the legal ownership of that right has changed.
Ben Boakye points out that “mere permission for another party to undertake mining activities, however unlawful, does not necessarily establish assignment of the concession.” He warns that treating bad behavior as a legal transfer could be a mistake. He cites a number of reasons for this position.
Unlawful acts are still crimes: Companies can be punished for illegal mining under other parts of the law without needing to claim the rights were assigned.
The State still holds the leash: Throughout the life of a concession, the State is supposed to know exactly who is responsible for royalties and environmental care.
As Boakye notes, “Until that statutory requirement [Ministerial approval] is satisfied, the legal relationship created by the grant remains unchanged.”
Why This Matters for Ghana’s Economy
If the courts start inferring that a transfer happened just because two parties had an informal arrangement, Boakye fears it will create chaos for the entire industry.
He warns that this could lead to subcontractors making frivolous claims against mining companies, claiming they own parts of a concession just because they were working there. This kind of legal confusion, he says, would be detrimental for investment and undermine certainty in the industry.
The Bottomline
Ben Boakye clarifies that his goal isn’t to let anyone off the hook. He supports uncompromising enforcement against illegal mining.
However, he insists that the law must be followed exactly as written to protect the integrity of the whole system. In his view, “interpreting operational misconduct as constituting a legally effective assignment risks expanding the scope of section 14 beyond the statutory framework established by Parliament.”
For the Executive Director of ACEP, if the mining sector is to stay stable, the Minister’s signature must remain the final word on who owns what.
