-Minerals Commission Reveals
Nawara Company Limited is under scrutiny following revelations by the Minerals Commission that approximately US$990,000 in outstanding annual mineral rights payments led to the revocation of its mining licence over the Nsuapemso concession in the Eastern Region.
The disclosure has raised questions about the company’s compliance with its financial obligations and the circumstances surrounding the loss of its licence, which has since become the subject of a heated dispute involving companies seeking to operate the concession.
According to Frank Asare, Director of Mineral Titles at the Minerals Commission, Nawara was given 120 days to settle its outstanding payments but failed to meet the deadline.
Speaking to Kwame Nkrumah Tikese on Okay FM’s Ade Akye Abia, Asare said the company was served with a notice in March 2025 under Section 68 of the Minerals and Mining Act.
The deadline reportedly expired in July 2025 without payment, prompting further regulatory action that culminated in the revocation of the licence on September 3, 2025.
The Commission’s account places Nawara’s alleged failure to settle the outstanding obligations at the heart of the licence revocation.
A 120-Day Window That Ended Without Payment
The most significant question arising from the Commission’s explanation is why Nawara allegedly failed to settle the outstanding payments within the period granted.
The 120-day notice provided the company with an opportunity to address its financial obligations before the revocation process was completed.
Asare further 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 its action followed the regulatory process rather than the influence of a private individual.
However, Nawara’s account of the debt, including whether it disputes the amount, challenges the assessment or has evidence of payments, would be necessary to establish the full facts.
Political Allegations Put Under the Microscope
The dispute has also drawn attention to businessman Alfred Mahama, the brother of President John Dramani Mahama.
CMS-PRO and AA Southern Industries, which are seeking to operate the Nsuapemso concession, have denied allegations linking Alfred Mahama to the revocation of Nawara’s licence.
The companies insist that the Minerals Commission acted on regulatory and financial grounds and that Nawara should not attribute the decision to political influence without supporting evidence.
Their position is consistent with the Commission’s stated explanation of the revocation. However, any definitive conclusion about allegations of political interference would require independent evidence.
Revoked Licence, New Applicants
The Minerals Commission has explained that mineral concessions belong to the state and that other eligible companies may apply to operate a concession after the previous licence has been revoked.
Asare said Nawara’s former licence no longer automatically authorises it to operate the site.
He also clarified that the outstanding debt remains the responsibility of Nawara Company Limited and would not automatically be transferred to any new applicant.
The Commission intends to continue considering applications for the concession unless the High Court issues an order directing it to restore Nawara’s rights.
Alleged Violence and Looting Require Separate Investigation
Beyond the financial dispute, allegations of violence and the looting of assets during the reported takeover of the Nsuapemso site have added another dimension to the controversy.
These allegations must be investigated independently of the licence revocation. A company’s alleged failure to meet its financial obligations does not, by itself, establish whether subsequent actions at the site were lawful.
The relevant authorities would need to establish what happened, who was involved and whether any offences were committed.
Nawara Must Answer the Outstanding Questions
The Minerals Commission’s account has placed the alleged US$990,000 debt and the expired payment deadline at the centre of the dispute.
For the public to obtain a complete picture, Nawara’s response to the outstanding payments, the notice issued in March 2025 and the subsequent revocation would be significant.
The company’s position on the alleged takeover, including claims of violence and looting, also remains relevant to the wider controversy.
Until those issues are independently examined, the Commission’s explanation provides the stated regulatory basis for the revocation, while the allegations surrounding the takeover remain matters requiring evidence and appropriate investigation.
thebusinessmail
