Amid the government’s quest to indigenize the country’s natural resource wealth, there is a sharp critique by policy analyst Bright Simons on how the government is handing over concessions to supposed local companies.
A case in point, for Bright Simons, is how the Bogoso-Prestea Mine was handed to Heath Goldfields without what he describes as a lack of proper due diligence and enforcement of laid-down regulations.
Deepening this issue is the controversial financing arrangement between Trafigura and Heath Goldfields over the Bogoso-Prestea Gold Mine.
For the vice president of IMANI Africa, the terms of the deal speak volumes about how the Swiss Trading Company assesses the local mining company. The terms of the deal, Bright Simons argues, scream that Trafigura does not trust the company to properly manage its investment.
He therefore maintains that if a sophisticated global investor doesn’t trust Heath to freely manage a $65 million loan, why did Ghana feel comfortable handing it control of a multi-billion-dollar national asset?
A Deal That Speaks Louder Than Words
As part of the deal, Trafigura provides about $65 million in financing and secures rights tied to future gold production. But the fine print tells a deeper story. According to Simons, the agreement is packed with restrictions such as the following;
Heath cannot make major decisions without prior approval
Key investments must be pre-cleared
Changes in control are tightly restricted
In global finance, such terms typically signal deep caution, if not outright distrust, by the lender. He interprets this as Trafigura effectively saying that they are not confident that Heath can manage this asset responsibly without its oversight.
“You have somebody who is a dispassionate commercial decision-maker, and he looks at Heath, and he says, before I give you $65 million, I want control over the mine in these areas. You cannot make a change of control. You can’t do this. These investments, we have to pre-clear them. Then he doesn’t trust the judgment of the company, of the management. And he thinks that if he doesn’t put those restrictions there and take control, they will make decisions that will endanger his investments,” he noted.
The Paradox at Home
For Bright Simons, as the international trading company was taking all the necessary precautions to protect its $65 million investment, Ghana, which owns the about $25 billion asset, literally threw caution to the wind.
Ghana, through its institutions, has entrusted Heath with the Bogoso-Prestea mine, an asset whose long-term value is often estimated in the billions. Yet, to secure a comparatively modest $65 million, Heath must operate under tight external controls.
That contrast is striking that the foreign investor is demanding control before committing $65 million, but the owners of the asset are handing over such a strategic asset with far fewer visible constraints.
For Simons, the most risk-aware party in the transaction, the financier, is far more cautious than the asset owner itself.
“So why is it that the government of Ghana, on the other hand, has no issues with Heath? And so why are we, on the Ghana side, who owns the asset? Why are we complacent? That’s a question you have to ask yourself,” he added.
A “Vote of No Confidence” Disguised as Financing
In practical terms, the structure of the deal functions like a silent audit of Heath’s credibility. When lenders impose heavy oversight, it usually reflects concerns about management competence, governance standards, financial discipline, and risk of value erosion.
Bright Simons argues that the Trafigura terms amount to a de facto vote of no confidence in Heath’s independent decision-making. The company is not being trusted to steer the mine without supervision.
Why This Matters for Ghana
For Bright Simons, the implications go beyond one company or one mine. The Bogoso-Prestea asset is not just another business; it represents long-term gold revenue, jobs, and local economic activity, among others.
If the operator of such an asset must be tightly controlled by an external financier, it raises broader concerns for the government to investigate.
Bright Simons’ argument cuts through the technicalities of the deal to expose a fundamental issue that was ignored by the government.
For him, if a $65 million investor insists on controlling decisions to protect its money, what does it say about the confidence Ghana should have in the same company managing a far more valuable national asset?
