The former Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, George Mireku Duker, has informed the High Court that land reclamation activities undertaken on mining concessions amount to mine support services and therefore do not require the same level of ministerial consent as the assignment or transfer of mineral rights under Ghana’s Minerals and Mining Act.
Testifying as the second defence witness for the NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, in the Samreboi illegal mining case, Duker clarified that Section 14 of Act 703 is expressly concerned with the transfer, assignment, mortgage, or any other dealings in mineral rights, all of which necessitate prior written approval from the sector minister.
According to him, reclamation and environmental remediation activities fall within the scope of mine support services and are therefore legally distinct from the assignment or transfer of mineral rights.
This distinction appears to form a central pillar of the defence strategy in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the NPP, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, and his company, Akonta Mining.
The prosecution maintains that Mr Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Wontumi, unlawfully permitted PW2, Henry Okoom, and another individual to carry out mining operations on Akonta Mining’s concession at Samreboi without the requisite statutory approval.
Their case rests substantially on assertions by PW2 that his engagement extended beyond mere reclamation of degraded portions of the concession to active mining activities on the site.
However, the former Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, George Mireku Duker, told the court that during his tenure between 2021 and 2024, concession holders were routinely encouraged by the ministry to undertake reclamation and environmental restoration works as part of broader government efforts to combat illegal mining.
“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 told the court that, had Akonta Mining assigned or transferred any mineral rights within the meaning of Section 14 of Act 703, such a transaction would have been formally documented in writing and submitted through the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources for prior 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.
Under cross-examination by Deputy Attorney-General, Justice Srem-Sai, the witness conceded that he had never met PW2, Henry Okoom, nor seen him in the company of the NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako.
The prosecutor pressed him repeatedly on whether he had any direct knowledge of the precise arrangement between Mr Antwi-Boasiako and PW2.
In response, the former Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, George Mireku Duker, admitted that no written authorisation for reclamation activities ever came to his attention during his tenure in office.
When asked whether Mr Antwi-Boasiako had personally informed him that Henry Okoom was engaged strictly for reclamation purposes, he instead referred to a separate interaction during a ministry awards programme, where Wontumi allegedly stated that he had invested in coconut plantations and reclamation works on degraded sections 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 open court, the prosecution noted that the allegation against Bernard Antwi-Boasiako is that he “permitted” Henry Okoom and another individual to carry out mining operations.
When questioned on whether the term “assignment” appeared anywhere in the particulars of the offences, the witness answered in the negative.
Nevertheless, the former Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, George Mireku Duker, maintained that permitting a third party to engage in mining activities could, depending on the factual context, amount to an assignment. He, however, drew a firm distinction between such arrangements and reclamation work, insisting that environmental remediation remains legally separate from mining operations.
The prosecution further suggested that the witness was effectively seeking to validate the operations of Akonta Mining, despite acknowledging that parliamentary ratification and certain operational approvals had not been obtained during his time in office.
In response, Mr Duker clarified that his testimony was limited to the lease acquisition framework, stressing that he could not vouch for any mining activities allegedly conducted on the concession beyond that regulatory threshold.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Tags:
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source link
