The Member of Parliament for Juaben, Francis Kwabena Berepong Owusu-Akyaw, has countered the Majority Caucus’s criticisms of the previous government’s Ewoyaa lithium agreement. He asserted that the legal foundation of that deal is sound and that the claims of procedural violations are false and misleading.
During a press conference in Parliament on Wednesday, the MP raised several misrepresentations in the Majority’s public statements regarding the earlier Ewoyaa agreement and expressed significant concerns about the new lithium contract currently under consideration in Parliament.
Also read: GH¢45 sanitary pad claim: Figment of a fast decomposing elephant – Clement Apaak
Owusu-Akyaw dismissed the Majority’s claim that the previous government approved a lithium royalty inconsistent with the Minerals and Mining Act. He explained that the original Act 703 established royalties between 3% and 6%, which was amended in 2010 (Act 794) to fix the rate at 5%. However, in 2015, Section 25 was revised again to give the Minister the flexibility to negotiate royalties as needed.
“When they say the earlier lithium agreement was not grounded in law, that is false. The 2015 amendment allows the Minister to negotiate the rate. That was the basis for the 10% royalty agreed upon at that time,” he stated. He argued that critics focusing solely on the 2010 amendment while ignoring the 2015 update are misrepresenting the law.
The MP also rejected claims that the previous administration overstepped its mandate by negotiating a 13% state free-carried interest. He referenced Section 43 of the Minerals and Mining Act, stating, Section 43(1) provides for a 10% free-carried interest, but Section 43(2) also grants the Minister the power to negotiate additional state participation. He concluded, “Therefore, the then Minister acted lawfully. There was no breach.”
Owusu-Akyaw suggested that the Majority’s arguments are politically motivated, remarking, “It seems they simply did not want that agreement ratified at the time, so they looked for excuses.”
Additionally, he raised concerns about the new agreement proposed by the current Minister, arguing that it contains legal and procedural defects that make it unfit for parliamentary approval. He claimed that the new contract violates LI 1247 (Regulation 184), which mandates stamping and registration within 21 days of signing, and pointed out conflicting provisions regarding additional minerals within the concession area.
“The agreement grants exclusive rights over lithum and other minerals, yet also claims that third parties may apply within 15 days. This is contradictory and must be corrected,” he explained.
He further noted that the recently amended Minerals Sustainability Levy, which was increased from 1% to 3%, is not included in the financial terms of the new agreement. He warned that if this is not clearly stated, the Ghana Revenue Authority cannot enforce it, so the omission must be rectified.
Owusu-Akyaw emphasized that Parliament cannot ratify a document filled with legal defects. “We are advising the Minister to withdraw the lithium agreement and address these issues before resubmitting it to Parliament. What the Majority is demanding now is inconsistent with their position in 2024. The inconsistency is shocking,” he lamented.
He stated that Parliament’s role under Article 268 requires thorough due diligence and asserted that any mining agreement presented to Parliament must be complete, compliant, and suitable for purpose—qualities he claims this agreement lacks.