JG Resources Ltd has observed with deep concern the recent wave of commentary attempting to distort a straightforward commercial dispute into a sensational narrative. The emerging pattern suggests selective reporting, calculated omissions, and framing that appears more interested in protecting certain interests than in presenting verifiable facts.

Let it be clearly stated from the outset. This matter is fundamentally about contract performance, gold supply accountability, assay verification, and outstanding financial exposure. Attempts to reduce it to media theatrics, personality politics, or allegations of speculative forgery do not alter the measurable commercial facts on record.

ON ALLEGATIONS OF FORGERY

The insinuation that JG Resources or its officers are involved in forgery is categorically rejected. It is:

• Untrue
• Reckless
• Unsupported by any regulatory or judicial finding
• Legally untenable

Such framing appears calculated to deflect attention from unresolved supply obligations and documented discrepancies requiring reconciliation. JG Resources will not accept reputational sabotage disguised as reporting.

ON SUPPLY FAILURE AND FINANCIAL EXPOSURE

The documented commercial position is clear and supported by transaction records:

• Approximately GHS 57.7 million was paid for the supply of 50 kilograms of gold, in three tranches between June and July 2025, pursuant to agreed invoices.
• According to Sesi-Edem’s internal assay, the company claims to have supplied approximately 30.8 kilograms, valued at approximately GHS 35,543,200.
• Based on those internal figures alone, an outstanding financial exposure of approximately GHS 22,156,800 remains unresolved.

However, under the Sale and Purchase Agreement, settlement is determined by accredited refinery assays at the destination:

• The official Dubai refinery assay confirms approximately 29.2 kilograms supplied, not 30.8 kilograms.
• Even by the supplier’s own documentation, an estimated 19.2 kilograms remained outstanding as at July 2025.

These figures are based on technical reconciliation, not speculation. They represent measurable commercial exposure that cannot be neutralised by narrative framing.

ON ASSAY DISCREPANCIES

The dispute was triggered by material differences between:

• Supplier origin assay documentation
• Accredited refinery assay results in Dubai
• Net fine gold settlement calculations

In international bullion trade, assay alignment determines valuation, contractual compliance, and financial settlement. Any variance directly affects commercial obligations.

Requests for independent GoldBod assay verification to facilitate reconciliation have not yet produced documentation, raising additional technical questions that must be resolved.

ON ATTEMPTED CONTRACT ABROGATION

Prior to regulatory involvement, representatives of Sesi-Edem reportedly indicated difficulty in continuing supply following changes in global gold prices and proposed contract termination with discussions of a refund.

Those discussions did not produce a consensus. A structured dispute resolution process was initiated in good faith but stalled after it became clear that ongoing investigations limited participation.

Regulatory scrutiny, however, does not suspend contractual accountability. It functions precisely as a safeguard where performance concerns arise.

ON GOVERNANCE OPTICS

Public commentary has referenced the involvement of individuals holding national advisory roles in connection with Sesi-Edem Company Limited. JG Resources does not assert wrongdoing on that basis but notes that:

• Public office proximity naturally increases expectations of transparency.
• Commercial disputes involving strategic export commodities inevitably attract heightened scrutiny.

This reflects accountability standards, not political positioning.

ON MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY

Ghana’s gold sector underpins:

• Foreign exchange earnings
• Fiscal stability
• International trade credibility

Sensational reporting without a full documentary context risks undermining both legitimate operators and national trade reputation.

Responsible journalism interrogates evidence rather than constructing convenient narratives, even as measurable commercial issues remain unresolved.

CONCLUSION

The dispute remains fundamentally one of:

• Contract performance reconciliation
• Assay variance resolution
• Outstanding supply deficit settlement

JG Resources remains open to resolution through:

• Documentary verification
• Commercial settlement
• Independent adjudication where necessary

Until reconciliation occurs, JG Resources maintains that its recovery claims remain:

• Factually grounded
• Commercially justified
• Legally sustainable

Facts will ultimately prevail over narratives. Documentation will outweigh speculation. Accountability cannot be negotiated away.

JG Resources will continue cooperating fully with regulatory authorities and reserves all rights regarding reputational harm arising from inaccurate public commentary.

Kwaku Appiah Yeboah,
Director, JG Resources.