The recent transfer of the Damang mining concession to Engineers & Planners (E&P) has ignited a necessary national conversation—one that sits at the intersection of law, governance, and economic justice. At its core lies a fundamental question: Is this a legitimate exercise of Ghana’s indigenisation policy, or does it risk being perceived as a bad-faith deployment of statutory authority?

There is no dispute that Ghana possesses full legal authority over its mineral resources. Under our constitutional framework, minerals are vested in the State in trust for the people. Mining companies—whether local or foreign—do not own these resources; they merely hold time-bound rights to exploit them. When such rights expire, the State is entitled to reassess, reallocate, and restructure those rights in a manner consistent with the national interest.

Viewed through this lens, the non-renewal of the Damang lease and its subsequent reallocation fall squarely within the government’s legal powers. Moreover, the broader policy direction toward increased local participation in mining is both defensible and desirable. For decades,

Ghana’s extractive sector has been dominated by foreign capital, often with limited downstream benefits for the local industry. A shift toward Ghanaian ownership and operational control is, in principle, a corrective measure aligned with economic sovereignty and long-term development.

However, legality alone does not settle the matter.

Public confidence in the integrity of such decisions depends not only on what is done, but how it is done—and crucially, to whom the benefits accrue. Where a major national asset is transferred to a company perceived to have close ties to political power, questions naturally arise. These questions do not automatically imply wrongdoing, but they do impose a heightened obligation on the government to demonstrate transparency, fairness, and consistency.

The concern is not that E&P is a Ghanaian company. On the contrary, local capacity should be nurtured and supported. The concern is whether the policy framework is being applied broadly to develop a competitive ecosystem of Ghanaian mining firms, or narrowly in a manner that concentrates opportunity in a single entity.

This distinction is critical.

If indigenisation is to be credible, it must be systemic, not selective. It must create pathways for multiple Ghanaian firms—across different regions and technical capacities—to participate meaningfully in the sector. Otherwise, a policy intended to decentralise economic power risks inadvertently centralising it.

The Damang case, therefore, presents an opportunity—not just for scrutiny, but for leadership. The government can dispel doubts and reinforce public trust by taking clear, demonstrable steps:

First, it should publish the criteria and evaluation framework used in awarding the Damang concession. Transparency is the most effective antidote to speculation.

Second, it should affirm, with specificity, that the indigenisation policy will be applied across other mining operations due for renewal or restructuring.

Third, and most importantly, it should ensure that upcoming allocations—particularly those anticipated by December—are distributed among a diverse range of qualified Ghanaian companies, rather than repeatedly favouring a single operator.

Such actions would shift the narrative decisively—from one of suspicion to one of structured reform.

Ghana stands at a pivotal moment in the governance of its natural resources. The tools of law are firmly in place. The policy direction is defensible. What remains is the consistent, even-handed application of that policy in a manner that reflects not only the letter of the law, but its spirit.

Indigenisation must not merely change the identity of operators—it must broaden participation, deepen capacity, and distribute opportunity.

If the Damang decision is to be remembered as a milestone rather than a controversy, it must be followed by a pattern of decisions that clearly demonstrate this principle.

The burden now rests with the State to show, through action, that this is indeed public policy—and not a predetermined private allocation.

-

By: A.O.B

A concerned Ghanaian in Canada