Minister for Lands and Natural Resources Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah has issued a forceful defence of the government’s decision to revoke the mining leases of Adamus Resources Limited, declaring that no mining company should be permitted to operate as though it is more powerful than the Ghanaian state.
The Minister made the remarks during a strategic policy dialogue between the Ministry and the IMANI Centre for Policy and Education in Accra on August 10, 2026. The engagement followed a formal request by IMANI for a fact-finding dialogue on the Ministry’s inherited baseline, policy direction, operational challenges, reforms and performance.
The Adamus controversy has emerged as one of the most consequential regulatory disputes in Ghana’s mining sector in recent years, raising fundamental questions about the enforcement of mining laws, due process, and the treatment of both local and foreign investment.
The Genesis of the Dispute
The dispute dates back to April 2026, when the Minister, acting on the recommendation of the Minerals Commission, revoked three mining leases held by Adamus Resources — covering the Akango, Salman and Nkroful concessions in the Ellembelle District of the Western Region. The company, which poured its first gold in January 2011 and has operated in the Nzema area for over a decade, subsequently petitioned the Minister for a review of the decision.
An Inter-Ministerial Committee was established to examine the company’s petition. Following the submission of the committee’s final report, the Minister upheld the revocation on August 10, 2026, and directed the Minerals Commission to take immediate administrative control of the mine.
The Allegations
According to the Minister, the regulatory action followed findings by the Minerals Commission’s Inspectorate Division that raised serious concerns about the company’s operations. Speaking at the IMANI dialogue, Kofi Buah said concerns were first raised through a report by the Chief Inspector of Mines in the region, after which a separate team from Accra was dispatched to independently verify the findings. The Minister said the second assessment found the situation to be even more serious.
The Minerals Commission outlined several infractions, including the unlawful assignment of mineral rights to third parties without ministerial approval — a violation of Section 14 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703). The Commission also found that the company had conducted mining activities outside its approved concession areas without obtaining the required operating permit from the Chief Inspector of Mines.
The investigation further revealed that Chinese nationals were engaged in mining activities at sites located several kilometres from Adamus’ mine infrastructure, with no direct access to the company’s processing plant — a contravention of Section 99(5)(a) and (b) of Act 995. The Commission described the mining activities as “substandard, environmentally destructive, and inconsistent with accepted industry practices,” causing significant environmental degradation.
Beyond operational breaches, the review committee reportedly uncovered substantial financial liabilities, including US224 million had been transferred to related parties outside Ghana between 2020 and 2024.
The Minister’s Defence
Addressing what he described as a “current issue” involving Adamus Resources, Kofi Buah said the Minerals Commission had an obligation to act as regulator of the mining industry and could not ignore serious breaches reported by its inspectors.
“We have a country. We have institutions. The Minerals Commission is supposed to be the policeman in the industry,” he said.
The Minister argued that if people found mining unlawfully were subsequently claimed by a licensed company as persons working on its behalf, the distinction between such activity and the illegal mining the government was fighting became difficult to defend. “If you do not have that permit, you are illegal,” he said in substance.
He added that the company had, in his account, failed to fully cooperate with committees established to investigate the matter and had not provided all information requested by regulatory authorities.
Kofi Buah further argued that the government could not prosecute small-scale illegal miners while appearing reluctant to act when alleged breaches involved a major mining company. “If we are prosecuting the small guys for committing some acts, everybody must respect the institutions,” he said.
“As we speak today, I am convinced I made the right decisions,” the Minister said, while acknowledging that institutions with lawful authority to review the Ministry’s decisions could reach a different conclusion.
The Company’s Response
Adamus Resources has consistently denied all allegations and rejected the revocation as unlawful. In a statement issued in April 2026, the company said it remained “a duly licensed mining company operating under valid permits” and held approvals from the Minerals Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Following the Minister’s decision to uphold the revocation, the company issued a stronger response, describing the decision as “unlawful” and accusing the Minister of “abuse of power wrapped in absolute disregard of law”. The company said it received the decision with “shock and disappointment” and insisted that the process did not comply with the statutory requirements of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703).
In a statement signed by Group Human Resource and Administration Manager Alex Obu-Simpson, Adamus accused the Minister of attempting to strip the company of its mineral rights without regard for legal procedures. The company described the allegations as “unfounded, contrived and deliberately manufactured”.
The company has signalled its intention to challenge the decision through the courts.
Due Process Questions
The Ministry has acknowledged that Adamus was not given prior notice before the leases were revoked, despite a legal provision requiring such notice. Section 68(2) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), requires the Minister to give a mineral rights holder at least 120 days to remedy an alleged breach before cancelling a mineral right.
A spokesperson for the Lands Minister, Mahmud Kabore, confirmed that Adamus was given “no any notice at all” because, in the Ministry’s view, the company did not deserve to be notified. Kabore argued that the provision could not apply where the alleged breaches could not be corrected, citing allegations that Adamus carried out mining activities without the required permits.
Adamus has rejected this position, arguing that the government failed to follow the statutory procedure for revocation.
IMANI’s Intervention
The policy dialogue produced a significant intervention from IMANI on how the dispute could proceed. Franklin Cudjoe, Founding President and CEO of IMANI, urged the Minister to consider offering Adamus Resources a final pathway through which the company could be shepherded by the Ministry to correct identified breaches and comply with what is required under any future agreement.
Cudjoe’s position was that strong regulation and investor protection need not be mutually exclusive. He stressed that where an investor is prepared to remedy identified breaches and comply with the law, the State should retain room for constructive engagement rather than automatically closing the door.
Cudjoe also emphasised that Ghanaian investors in the mining industry deserve the same level of institutional protection, fairness and opportunity to regularise their operations that the country would ordinarily extend to foreign investors.
The intervention placed another issue at the centre of the Adamus dispute: whether Ghana’s regulatory system can simultaneously enforce its mining laws firmly while providing predictable and equitable treatment for both local and foreign capital.
Kofi Buah responded positively to the proposal, indicating that the Ministry would be willing to engage where the company demonstrated a genuine willingness to make the necessary corrections and ensure that the problems identified by regulators did not recur.
Community Concerns
The revocation has also drawn concern from residents of communities within the mine’s operational area. Residents of Akango, Salman and Nkroful have accused the Minister of bias, warning that the revocation could have far-reaching economic and social consequences for the affected communities.
The residents argue that Adamus Resources has operated in the area for many years and has become an important part of the economic life of the surrounding communities. The company has stated that more than 60 percent of its workforce is drawn from host communities and that it employs over 3,000 Ghanaians across its group of companies.
While acknowledging the government’s responsibility to enforce mining laws, residents said decisions affecting major investments should also be subjected to due process and assessed against their wider social and economic implications.
A Test of Regulatory Credibility
The Adamus controversy presents a wider test of regulatory credibility for Ghana’s mining sector. If the Ministry’s allegations are supported by the underlying regulatory records, the case could demonstrate whether Ghana is prepared to apply mining laws equally to small operators and major companies.
But fairness must operate in both directions. A company accused of regulatory breaches must be required to answer those allegations, while legitimate investors — particularly Ghanaian investors — should also be assured that enforcement will be predictable, proportionate and accompanied by a reasonable opportunity to correct remediable breaches.
The core principle articulated by Kofi Buah was unmistakable: a mining licence does not place a company above the regulator, and the size of an investor should not determine whether Ghana’s mining laws are enforced.
But the intervention from IMANI added an equally important qualification: no mining company should be bigger than Ghana, but Ghana must also ensure that its regulatory power protects legitimate local investors with the same seriousness it extends to foreign capital.
The allegations remain the Minister’s account of the regulatory dispute and require a substantive response from Adamus Resources. The company has indicated it will challenge the decision through the courts.
