Minerals Commission Bullying, Muscling Out Our CEO – Northern Ashanti Mines

According to a report by Citi FM on Friday October 30, 2026, a major dispute has erupted between Northern Ashanti Mines Limited and the Minerals Commission, with a director and shareholder of the mining company accusing the regulatory body of bullying its female Chief Executive Officer and allegedly attempting to force her out of Ghana’s mining industry.

Fredrick Okine, a director and shareholder of Northern Ashanti Mines, has expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Commission’s handling of the company’s mining lease dispute, describing the situation as an unfair attempt to undermine a woman working in an industry largely dominated by men.

Speaking on Eyewitness News on Citi FM on Thursday, October 29, 2026, Mr Okine questioned the circumstances surrounding the Commission’s decision to terminate the company’s mining lease, arguing that the authorities were determined to transfer the concession to another party rather than engage the company to resolve its outstanding obligations.

He suggested that the treatment meted out to the company’s female CEO was particularly troubling, insisting that she was being unfairly targeted despite her efforts to establish herself in the mining sector.

“I find it very unfortunate that we have overblown egos trying to bully and muscle out a woman, the only woman in the industry, not for failing to pay her bills, but for wanting to give the concession to another party at all costs,” he said.

He further expressed concern about what he described as an attempt to intimidate the company’s leadership and undermine the position of its female chief executive.

“A woman who is trying hard in a man’s world is being muscled out, is being bullied at all costs. This is unreal, and this is not right,” Mr Okine added.

His comments come amid an escalating disagreement over the termination of Northern Ashanti Mines’ mining lease, with the Minerals Commission maintaining that the company failed to fulfil its statutory financial obligations and had not undertaken meaningful mining operations for more than two years.

However, Mr Okine believes the Commission should have taken a more consultative approach before reaching the decision, particularly given the financial circumstances and history surrounding the concession.

He questioned why the Commission’s Managing Director, Isaac Tandoh, did not engage the company to establish the reasons behind the outstanding payments before recommending the termination of its mineral rights.

According to him, the company had previously communicated with the authorities through various letters, making it necessary for the Commission to understand the background of the situation before taking what he considers a drastic decision.

“Why didn’t he find out from us that these things are sitting down, these letters have been written, but then you haven’t been paying, what has happened?” he asked.

Mr Okine acknowledged that there were outstanding financial obligations but insisted that the manner in which the liabilities had been presented did not adequately reflect the different periods during which the debts accumulated.

He argued that some of the liabilities were inherited from previous operators and should not be presented as though they were entirely accumulated under the current management of Northern Ashanti Mines.

“Nobody is disputing any figure or any figures that have been put in there. We have also agreed to the total sum. But the way it is being framed is wrong,” he stated.

He maintained that the company was prepared to address the outstanding payments and believed that a reasonable period of engagement could have provided an opportunity to settle the debts without terminating the mining lease.

The director also questioned the process through which the concession was being considered for allocation to another mining company, arguing that the authorities should first resolve the disagreement over Northern Ashanti Mines’ mineral rights.

He further disclosed that the company had made investments towards developing the concession and was preparing its mining plant with the intention of commencing operations, creating employment opportunities and generating revenue.

Mr Okine also argued that the company’s existing stockpiles could provide the financial resources required to settle the outstanding obligations, suggesting that the debts could be cleared without necessarily taking away the mining concession.

“These stockpiles can pay the debts. We can pay the debt overnight. What is it that we have done?” he questioned.

Meanwhile, the Minerals Commission has strongly defended its decision, insisting that the termination of Northern Ashanti Mines’ mining lease was lawful and followed the relevant legal procedures.

At a press conference on Thursday, October 29, the Commission’s Chief Executive Officer, Isaac Tandoh, said the company had failed to meet its statutory obligations despite receiving several opportunities to regularise its position.

The Commission explained that Northern Ashanti Mines, formerly known as Owere Mines, owed US$8.33 million in outstanding Annual Mineral Right fees relating to its mining leases covering the period from 2010 to 2025.

It also identified an additional US$49,928 in outstanding fees associated with prospecting licences covering the period between 2019 and 2025.

The regulatory body maintained that its decision was supported by the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176), as well as the terms and conditions governing the company’s mineral rights.

The Commission further indicated that Northern Ashanti Mines had acknowledged receipt of the termination notice but subsequently decided to challenge the decision in court.

Mr Tandoh consequently urged the company to concentrate on its legal proceedings instead of continuing to make public statements about the dispute.

“The company duly acknowledged receipt of the termination notice and yet it has chosen the courts. So we advise that they should pursue the courts and not the court of public opinion,” he said.

The disagreement intensified following an operation on October 22, 2026, when officials of the Minerals Commission, accompanied by military personnel, entered the company’s concession to enforce the termination of its mining lease.

The development has further heightened tensions between the two sides, with Northern Ashanti Mines questioning the fairness of the process and the Commission insisting that it acted within the law.

While the company believes that dialogue and a reasonable repayment arrangement could have resolved the outstanding financial obligations, the Minerals Commission maintains that mineral rights come with statutory responsibilities that every mining company must fulfil.

The dispute has now developed into a legal and public disagreement, with both parties maintaining opposing positions on the termination of the concession and its future ownership.

Blessed_Hub feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com