Former Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, George Mireku Duker, testified in court on May 20, 2026. He stated that land reclamation on mining concessions is a mine support service. Such activities do not need the same ministerial consent as transferring mineral rights. This clarification was made during the trial of Bernard Antwi-Boasiako. He is the NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman. The case involves accusations of illegal mining at Samreboi.
Duker explained that Section 14 of Act 703 is specifically for dealings in mineral rights. This includes transfers, assignments, and mortgages. These require prior written approval from the sector minister. Reclamation and environmental remediation fall under mine support services. These are legally distinct from mineral rights transfers. This distinction is a key part of the defence. It aims to counter the prosecution's case against Akonta Mining. Akonta Mining is owned by Antwi-Boasiako.
The prosecution alleges that Antwi-Boasiako unlawfully allowed mining on Akonta Mining’s concession. This supposedly happened without the required statutory approval. Their case relies on evidence that engagement went beyond reclamation. It allegedly involved active mining. Duker, who served between 2021 and 2024, said concession holders were encouraged. The ministry promoted reclamation. This was part of efforts against illegal mining. "A concessionaire without permit has no right to mine," Duker stated under cross-examination. He stressed that mine support services do not fall under Section 14 of Act 703.
He further told the court that any assignment or transfer of mineral rights would be documented. It would have gone through the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. Prior approval would have been sought. "Counsel is right if there is no written document to meet the dictates of Section 14. It becomes clear that there is no action at all," Duker said. He was responding to questions about written approval requirements. Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai questioned Duker. Duker admitted he never met the prosecution witness, Henry Okoom. He also had not seen Okoom with Antwi-Boasiako. The prosecutor repeatedly asked about his direct knowledge of the arrangement between Antwi-Boasiako and Okoom.
Duker admitted that no written authorization for reclamation activities ever reached him. He was asked if Antwi-Boasiako had told him Okoom was hired only for reclamation. Duker instead mentioned an awards program. Wontumi allegedly said he invested in coconut plantations and reclamation. The prosecution also questioned the relevance of Duker's evidence. They noted the charges do not specifically mention "assignment." The allegation is that Antwi-Boasiako "permitted" mining operations. Duker agreed "assignment" was not in the charge sheet. However, he maintained that permitting a third party to mine could be an assignment. He separated this from reclamation work.
The prosecution suggested Duker was validating Akonta Mining's operations. This was despite acknowledgment that parliamentary ratification was not obtained. Duker clarified his testimony focused on the lease acquisition framework. He could not vouch for any mining activities beyond that threshold. The case highlights the complex legal landscape of mining in Ghana. It also underscores the importance of clear distinctions in regulatory frameworks. Economic activities in the mining sector require adherence to laws like the Minerals and Mining Act. Enforcement ensures responsible resource management. The outcome of this trial could set precedents for future cases involving mining concessions and related activities.