The Lands and Natural Resources Minister has revealed that government spent five months investigating Akonta Mining Company Limited before revoking its license, countering suggestions that the action was hasty or politically motivated.
Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah disclosed the extended probe timeline while defending government’s decision to revoke the company’s mining lease over allegations linking it to illegal mining activities in forest reserves. The minister’s revelation comes amid an ongoing legal battle, with Akonta Mining having sued both him and the Minerals Commission for GH₵20 million in damages.
The investigation centered on allegations that Akonta Mining, although licensed to operate off-reserve, had encroached on the Aboi and Tano Nimiri Forest Reserves in the Western North Region without necessary permits. What investigators reportedly uncovered during those five months went beyond simple boundary violations, according to government officials.
The minister alleged that Akonta Mining had evolved into what he termed “a criminal syndicate,” selling access to the Aboi Forest Reserve to illegal miners for approximately GH₵300,000 per concession. These illegal operators, allegedly protected by Akonta, were accused of devastating the River Tano and surrounding forests with impunity.
The revocation decision, announced in April 2025, marked one of the most high-profile enforcement actions under the current administration’s renewed anti-galamsey campaign. It also triggered immediate pushback from the company’s owner, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party.
Antwi-Boasiako described the minister’s allegations as “a palpable lie” and accused Armah-Kofi Buah of attempting to link his company to illegal mining without justification. The political dimensions of the case haven’t gone unnoticed, with observers noting Wontumi’s prominent position in the opposition party.
Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu praised the minister’s decision as a bold and commendable step in fighting illegal mining, even questioning whether the previous administration would have taken similar action against someone of Wontumi’s political stature. Kpebu had previously petitioned the Inspector General of Police to investigate Akonta Mining’s activities in the Tano Nimiri Forest, though that petition apparently yielded no action at the time.
The five-month investigation timeline suggests government approached the matter carefully, likely anticipating legal challenges given the company owner’s profile. During that period, investigators reportedly gathered evidence of unauthorized mining activities, documented environmental damage, and traced the alleged scheme whereby forest reserve access was being commercialized.
Akonta Mining filed its lawsuit at the Accra High Court on April 24, 2025, seeking damages and challenging both the revocation decision and the public allegations made against the company. The legal action represents a significant test case for how courts will balance environmental protection imperatives against private property and business rights.
The Minerals Commission has backed the minister’s position, stating there’s sufficient evidence that Akonta Mining engaged in galamsey activities. The Commission’s involvement adds regulatory authority to what might otherwise appear as purely political enforcement, though critics of the action continue questioning the evidence basis.
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question about Ghana’s approach to combating illegal mining. Can government move decisively against well-connected operators, or will political considerations and legal challenges water down enforcement efforts? The Akonta Mining case has become something of a litmus test.
The company’s alleged business model, if proven, would represent a particularly brazen form of environmental crime. Rather than simply conducting illegal mining directly, the allegations suggest Akonta was functioning as a gatekeeper, monetizing access to protected forest reserves while providing cover for numerous small-scale illegal miners. This would explain both the extensive environmental damage observed in the area and the difficulty enforcement agencies faced in addressing it.
River Tano, one of Ghana’s major water bodies, has suffered severe degradation from mining activities in recent years. The river originates in the Western North Region and flows through multiple districts before emptying into the Gulf of Guinea. Its pollution affects drinking water supplies, fishing communities, and agricultural activities across a wide area.
The Aboi and Tano Nimiri Forest Reserves were established specifically to protect watersheds and preserve biodiversity. When mining activities penetrate these protected areas, the environmental consequences extend far beyond the immediate excavation sites. Forest cover loss accelerates erosion, increases flooding risks, and destroys habitats for endemic species.
Minister Armah-Kofi Buah’s emphasis on the five-month investigation period appears designed to preempt accusations that the revocation was arbitrary or insufficiently grounded in evidence. In legal proceedings, the government will need to demonstrate both procedural correctness and substantive justification for what amounts to destroying a significant business investment.
For Akonta Mining, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Beyond the immediate loss of the mining lease and the GH₵20 million damages claim, there’s potential criminal liability if allegations of operating a “criminal syndicate” are pursued. The company’s legal strategy seems focused on attacking the credibility of government’s claims and suggesting political motivation behind the action.
Environmental activists and anti-galamsey campaigners have welcomed the license revocation, seeing it as evidence that the current administration might be willing to confront powerful interests in ways previous governments weren’t. However, they’re watching closely to see whether the action withstands legal challenges and whether similar enforcement follows against other problematic operators.
The case also highlights ongoing debates about mining sector regulation in Ghana. How much discretion should ministers have in revoking licenses? What evidentiary standards should apply? How can enforcement balance property rights against environmental protection? These questions extend far beyond Akonta Mining to affect the entire sector.
As the legal battle unfolds in the courts, the five-month investigation will likely become a central point of contention. Did that period yield sufficient evidence to justify such drastic action? Or was it merely a fig leaf covering what amounts to selective enforcement against a political opponent? The answers will shape both this specific case and broader anti-galamsey efforts going forward.
