The Minerals Commission has officially clarified that hiring a third-party contractor for mining-related operations does not amount to a transfer of mineral rights, settling a major legal debate following the high-profile conviction of a prominent mining executive .
The regulator’s definitive stance came in response to a Right to Information (RTI) request filed on August 6, 2026, by mining professional Ing Wisdom Gomashie. The inquiry sought to test the boundaries of Section 14 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) after an Accra High Court sentenced Bernard Antwi Boasiako—popularly known as Chairman Wontumi—to 20 years’ imprisonment on July 20, 2026, for allegedly assigning a mineral right without ministerial approval .
Commission’s Definitive Stance
Responding on August 20, the Minerals Commission confirmed that contract mining and mine-support services are fundamentally distinct from the assignment of a mineral right. According to the regulator, “a mineral-right holder does not transfer its concession rights simply by engaging a registered support-service provider to execute operational duties under Section 59 of Act 703 and LI 2174” .
Key highlights from the Commission’s RTI response include :
· No Deeds of Assignment: The Commission verified that routine operational contracts do not generate deeds of assignment between rights holders and support service providers, noting that “there are no Deeds of Assignment between the mineral right holders and support service providers” .
· Section 14 Scope: The Commission expressly clarified that mining-support-service activities, such as contract mining, are not synonymous with the assignment of a mineral right. Section 14 of Act 703 deals with assignment of mineral rights and not contract mining .
· Regulatory Distinction: The Commission drew a clear legal distinction between the provision of support services and the assignment of a mineral right. Engaging a support-service provider for contract mining does not, by itself, constitute an assignment of the underlying mineral right .
Background: A Landmark Conviction
The clarification comes against the backdrop of a case that has drawn significant public attention given Wontumi’s prominent role within the governing party’s regional leadership structure . Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, presiding over the Criminal Division of the High Court, found him guilty on six charges, including assignment of mineral rights without approval and deliberately facilitating mining operations without the required licence .
The court imposed two separate 20-year prison sentences, to run concurrently, and fined him 10,000 penalty units on each count. Akonta Mining Limited, the company associated with Wontumi, was convicted on two counts and fined 15,000 penalty units on each count .
The case originated from a police operation at the Samreboi concession in the Western Region on April 16 and 17, 2025, during which 29 people were arrested and authorities seized 25 excavators, firearms, vehicles and GH¢157,000 .
Key Legal Distinctions
In delivering judgment, the court found that the prosecution had proved all charges beyond reasonable doubt . Although Akonta Mining is a separate legal entity, Justice Kocuvie-Tay ruled that the circumstances justified lifting the company’s corporate veil because Wontumi exercised effective control over its operations. Evidence showed that the company lacked a functional board of directors, and he was consequently held personally liable for offences carried out through the company .
The court rejected the defence’s argument that Henry Okum had only been engaged to reclaim degraded land, finding instead that Okum had been permitted to mine parts of the concession and use proceeds to finance land reclamation—evidence the court said went unchallenged during cross-examination .
During the trial, a former Deputy Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, George Mireku Duker, had testified that assignment of mineral rights is done through written instruments and not orally . He also stated that mining concessionaires were routinely permitted to authorise environmental reclamation work without that arrangement constituting an assignment of mineral rights under Section 14(1) of Act 703 .
Wider Policy Context
The clarification comes amid sweeping reforms in Ghana’s mining sector. Under revised local content regulations introduced in January 2025, surface mining must be undertaken by fully Ghanaian-owned firms, while underground mining must be carried out by companies with at least 50% Ghanaian ownership .
Major international companies including Newmont, AngloGold Ashanti and Zijin have been given until December 2026 to shift to local contractors or face sanctions, with regulators warning of “a huge fine for the first step” and the possibility of mine shutdowns for non-compliance . The directive forms part of broader efforts to build capacity among Ghanaian mining service companies and retain more value in-country, with emerging firms such as Rocksure and Engineers & Planners expected to play a significant role .
Industry Implications
The Commission’s definitive stance mirrors earlier policy reflections by the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP), which cautioned that interpreting operational misconduct automatically as a mineral right assignment risked undermining legal certainty and placing courts above specialised regulators .
While emphasising that the RTI findings do not overturn existing court judgments, Ing Gomashie noted that the clarification provides a vital precedent. Industry stakeholders have argued that the clarification protects the legal framework governing legitimate contract-mining arrangements, ensuring investors and local contractors can operate with regulatory clarity .
The conviction of Wontumi and the subsequent regulatory clarification are likely to remain key tests of Ghana’s efforts to prosecute influential individuals accused of illegal mining while maintaining legal certainty for legitimate mining operations .
