Ex-Deputy Minister: reclamation not mineral rights transfer
The ongoing illegal mining trial involving Bernard Antwi-Boasiako took a new turn at the High Court after former Deputy Lands and Natural Resources Minister George Mireku Duker argued that reclamation work on mining concessions should not be treated as the transfer of mineral rights under Ghanaian law.
Appearing as a defence witness in the case involving Mr Antwi-Boasiako and Akonta Mining, Mr Duker told the court that environmental restoration activities carried out on mining lands fall under mine support services and are legally different from granting or assigning mining rights to another party.
His testimony focused heavily on Section 14 of Ghana’s Minerals and Mining Act, which requires ministerial approval for transactions involving the transfer, assignment or mortgage of mineral rights.
According to the former minister, reclamation arrangements do not automatically fall within that category.
“A concessionaire without permit has no right to mine,” he told the court during cross-examination, while maintaining that reclamation activities alone do not trigger the provisions under Section 14 of Act 703.
The prosecution alleges that Mr Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Wontumi, improperly allowed another individual, identified in court as Henry Okoom, to conduct mining operations on Akonta Mining’s concession at Samreboi without the legally required approval.
State prosecutors argue that the activities on the concession went beyond land restoration and amounted to active mining.
However, Mr Duker testified that during his time at the ministry between 2021 and 2024, concession holders were encouraged to reclaim degraded lands as part of national efforts to address the environmental impact of illegal mining.
He further argued that if any mineral rights had genuinely been transferred or assigned, the arrangement would have required formal written documentation and approval through the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources.
“Counsel is right if there is no written document to meet the dictates of Section 14. It becomes clear that there is no action at all,” he said.
Under questioning from Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai, the witness admitted he had no personal knowledge of the specific agreement between Mr Antwi-Boasiako and Henry Okoom.
He also acknowledged that he had never met Okoom or seen him with the NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman.
When pressed on whether Wontumi had directly informed him that Okoom was engaged only for reclamation purposes, Mr Duker referred instead to a separate discussion at a ministry event where the mining company owner allegedly spoke about reclamation work and coconut cultivation on portions of the concession.
The prosecution also challenged the relevance of the witness’s arguments on assignment of mineral rights, noting that the charges before the court focus on allegations that Mr Antwi-Boasiako “permitted” others to mine, rather than formally assigning mineral rights.
Although he conceded that the word “assignment” does not appear in the charge sheet, Mr Duker maintained that the legal interpretation of permitting mining activity could vary depending on the facts of the arrangement. He nonetheless insisted that reclamation and mining operations remain legally distinct activities.
The former deputy minister also clarified that his testimony was limited to regulatory procedures surrounding mining leases and approvals, stating that he could not personally verify any alleged mining operations said to have taken place on the concession.
Source: myjoyonline.com
About The Author
