A former Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, George Mireku Duker, has told the High Court that reclamation activities on a mining concession constitute mine support services and do not require ministerial approval in the same way as the assignment or transfer of mineral rights under Ghana’s Minerals and Mining Act.
Testifying as the second defence witness for NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, in the Samreboi illegal mining case, Duker said Section 14 of Act 703 specifically governs the transfer, assignment, mortgage or other dealings in mineral rights and requires prior written approval from the sector minister.
According to him, reclamation and environmental remediation fall within mine support services and are therefore distinct from the assignment of mineral rights.
The distinction seems to be a key part of the defence in the ongoing criminal trial against the Ashanti Regional NPP Chairman and his company, Akonta Mining.
Prosecutors allege that Wontumi unlawfully permitted PW2, Henry Okoom, and another individual to undertake mining operations on Akonta’s concession at Samreboi without the approval required by law.
The prosecution’s case is based substantially on claims by PW2 that he had been engaged not only to reclaim degraded portions of the concession but also to mine on the site.
However, Duker told the court that, during his tenure as Deputy Minister responsible for mining between 2021 and 2024, concessionaires were routinely encouraged by the ministry to undertake reclamation and environmental remediation on degraded lands as part of government’s anti-galamsey efforts.
“A concessionaire without permit has no right to mine,” he said during cross-examination, insisting that mine support services do not invoke Section 14 of Act 703.
He further testified that if Akonta Mining had assigned or transferred any mineral rights as contemplated under Section 14, such a transaction would necessarily have been reduced into writing and routed through the Ministry for approval.
“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,” the witness said while answering questions on the statutory requirement for written approval.
But under cross-examination by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the witness conceded he had never met PW2, Henry Okoom, nor seen him together with Chairman Wontumi.
The prosecutor pressed Duker repeatedly on whether he possessed any personal knowledge of the exact arrangement between Wontumi and PW2.
Duker admitted that no written permission authorising reclamation activities ever came to his attention while he was in office.
Asked directly whether Chairman Wontumi personally informed him that Henry Okoom had been engaged strictly for reclamation, the witness referred instead to a conversation during a ministry awards programme where Wontumi allegedly stated he had invested in coconut plantations and reclamation efforts on degraded portions of the concession.
The prosecution also challenged the relevance of the witness’s extensive evidence on assignment of mineral rights, pointing out that the particulars of offence before the court do not specifically mention “assignment.”
Reading from the charge sheet in court, the prosecution highlighted that the allegation against Wontumi is that he “permitted” Henry Okoom and another person to undertake mining operations.
When asked whether the word “assignment” appeared anywhere in the particulars of the offences, the witness answered in the negative.
Nonetheless, Duker maintained that permitting another party to undertake mining operations could amount to an assignment depending on the circumstances, though he insisted reclamation activities remained legally distinct from mining.
The prosecution further suggested that the witness was attempting to vouch for the legitimacy of Akonta Mining’s operations despite admitting that parliamentary ratification and operational approvals had not yet been secured during his tenure.
In response, Duker clarified that he could only vouch for the lease acquisition process and not for mining operations allegedly undertaken on the concession.
