Accra, Ghana – May 14, 2026 – The legal standing of verbal agreements in Ghana’s mining sector came under scrutiny today as the first defence witness in the Samreboi concession trial asserted that oral permission cannot constitute the assignment of mineral rights under Ghanaian law. Wisdom Edem Gomashie, an expert mining engineer testifying for the accused, including ‘Chairman Wontumi,’ argued before the court that Ghana’s mining legislation mandates formal procedures for any transfer of mineral rights.
Context of the Case
The trial involves Chairman Wontumi and his company, facing six charges related to alleged illegal mining activities. The prosecution contends that the accused permitted individuals to mine on their concession without the requisite ministerial approval and facilitated unlicensed mining operations.
The defence, led by lawyer Andy Appiah-Kubi, has centered its argument on the absence of a written agreement. They contend that Chairman Wontumi’s decision to allow operations did not amount to an assignment of mineral rights because no formal contract was established.
Legal Framework and Witness Testimony
Gomashie based his testimony on Ghana’s Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), and the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176). He informed the court that a review of the charge sheet indicated that a valid assignment of mineral rights could not be predicated on verbal discussions alone.
He emphasized that the assignment of mineral rights is a formal legal transaction. Therefore, it cannot be created through informal or verbal exchanges, requiring strict adherence to prescribed procedures, including authorization from the minister responsible for mines.
The witness further distinguished between leaseholders engaging service providers for operational activities and the assignment of mineral rights. He stated that such service agreements do not necessarily equate to a transfer of mineral rights.
Prosecution’s Counterarguments and Witness Credibility
The prosecution, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, challenged Gomashie’s interpretation of the law. Dr. Srem-Sai argued that a transfer remains a transfer even if not documented in writing, asserting that granting someone the right to exploit minerals on a concession constitutes an effective transfer regardless of formality.
During cross-examination, Gomashie’s credibility faced scrutiny as inconsistencies emerged in his sworn statement. Discrepancies were highlighted concerning his academic qualifications and the institutions he claimed to have attended.
Specifically, the court noted that the witness, born in April 1993, indicated in his statement that he obtained his first degree in 1998. Further confusion arose regarding his Master’s degree, with his statement suggesting it was from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, while he later clarified it was from the University of Mines and Technology and the University of Ghana.
Gomashie admitted these were typographical errors and mistakes, including a claim of obtaining a Master of Science Degree in Minerals and Economics in 2003. The court subsequently permitted him to amend his statement to rectify these credential inaccuracies.
Implications for the Mining Industry
This case brings to the forefront the critical importance of formal documentation in Ghana’s mining sector. The defence’s reliance on the lack of written agreements suggests a potential challenge to informal arrangements that may have been common practice.
If the court sides with the defence’s interpretation, it could necessitate a review of how mineral rights are managed and transferred, potentially leading to stricter enforcement of licensing and assignment regulations. This could impact how mining companies operate, engage with third parties, and manage their concessions.
Conversely, if the prosecution’s stance prevails, it might reinforce the principle that the substance of an agreement, rather than its form, dictates its legal validity. This could have implications for how disputes over informal mining arrangements are adjudicated.
What to Watch Next
The trial continues with further proceedings, and the court’s final decision will likely set a precedent for the interpretation of mineral rights assignments in Ghana. Observers will be watching to see how the judge reconciles the legal requirements for formal assignments with the prosecution’s argument about the nature of transfers. The credibility of expert witnesses and the accuracy of their statements will also remain key factors in the case’s progression.
Leave a Reply