A former Deputy Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, George Mireku Duker, has told the High Court that any assignment or transfer of mineral rights in Ghana must be done through written documentation and not by oral agreement.
He made the assertion when he mounted the witness box on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, as a defence witness in the ongoing criminal trial involving Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Wontumi, and his company Akonta Mining Limited.
Testifying before the court, the former deputy minister, who served at the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources between 2021 and 2024, explained that the administrative system at the ministry required all formal transactions involving mineral rights to pass through official written channels.
According to him, any assignment under Section 14(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), would ordinarily be documented and routed through the ministerial office for approval.
“When an assignment is being made, it is done in a written instrument and not orally. Therefore, if Akonta Mining had had any arrangement with any other party under section 14 of Act 703, it would have gone to my table through the administrative structure we had at the ministry then,” he told the court.
Legal Charges
Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited are facing six criminal counts linked to allegations that the company allowed two individuals, Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi, to engage in mining activities on its concession without the required ministerial approval, and also facilitated illegal mining operations.
The prosecution’s case is centred on alleged breaches of the Minerals and Mining Act, including permitting unlicensed mining activity within a legally acquired concession.
Ministerial Practice on Concessions
Mireku Duker further told the court that concession holders in Ghana are often encouraged to undertake environmental reclamation activities on degraded lands, and such actions do not amount to an assignment of mineral rights under the law.
He explained that, through the Minerals Commission, concessionaires are routinely advised to assist in restoring mined-out lands without triggering the approval requirements under Section 14.
He also made reference to Section 59 of Act 703 and Legislative Instrument (L.I.) 2176, stating that mine support services, including reclamation works, operate under a separate regulatory framework and do not require ministerial approval for mineral rights transfers.
Enforcement and Field Operations
The former deputy minister also described efforts undertaken during his tenure to address illegal mining activities on concessions, including the Akonta Mining concession.
He told the court that reports received at the ministry indicated that unauthorized miners had invaded the concession, prompting enforcement interventions.
According to him, he personally led security operations that resulted in the arrest of illegal miners, who were later displayed at the entrance of the site in the presence of the media. He also disclosed that in one instance, a helicopter was deployed as part of the operation.
He added that his familiarity with the area and its challenges made him well positioned to understand ongoing illegal mining activities in the enclave.
At one point, he told the court: “If drones are thrown now, my evidence will be clear,” emphasizing his knowledge of the terrain and the situation on the ground.
He further testified that Wontumi had previously informed him during a ministry awards event that although mining operations had not fully commenced, he had invested in a coconut plantation to reclaim portions of degraded land affected by illegal miners.
Cross-Examination
During cross-examination by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the witness was taken through the legal requirements under Section 14(1) of Act 703.
He agreed with the prosecution’s position that any transfer, assignment, mortgage, or related transaction must be in writing to obtain ministerial approval.
He also conceded that failure to comply with the statutory requirement would amount to non-compliance with the law.
The exchange concluded with the witness affirming that any breach of the provision could constitute an offence under the law, depending on the circumstances.
The trial continues.
