Exposing the $12 Million Agyapa Royalties Cover-Up

Daftar Isi

The Agyapa Royalties Controversy and the Legal Battle Over a $12 Million Expenditure

A complex web of legal, financial, and political issues has emerged around the failed Agyapa Royalties Limited deal, which involved a significant expenditure of US$12 million. This controversy has sparked a strong reaction from a prominent law firm, OSAD Legal Services PRUC, which has publicly challenged what it describes as false and misleading information published online.

The law firm has issued an official disclaimer, demanding that the article on asaaseradio.com be retracted. The publication allegedly accused MIIF (Minerals Income Investment Fund), the parent company of Agyapa Royalties Limited, of attempting to manipulate its 2024 audit report. OSAD Legal Services PRUC emphasized that its engagement with MIIF is strictly limited to legal matters in a pending court case and has no connection to any audit processes.

This dispute comes amid growing scrutiny over the Agyapa deal, which was initiated by the Akufo-Addo government. The plan aimed to monetize Ghana’s future gold royalty revenue by transferring rights to a special-purpose vehicle, Agyapa Royalties Limited (ARL). Under this structure, ARL was expected to raise funds through local and international capital markets, including the Ghana Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange, in exchange for future receipts from gold production royalties.

However, the deal faced intense criticism for potentially undervaluing Ghana's national assets. Analysts argued that transferring future royalty revenues from 48 major gold-mining leases for a one-off payment between US$500 million and US$750 million could result in significant long-term losses for the country.

On 13 February 2024, the then-MIIF CEO, Edward Nana Yaw Koranteng, revealed that approximately US$12 million had already been spent on the Agyapa deal before it was suspended. This revelation triggered further debate and media coverage, with some outlets reporting on an alleged audit report by the Audit Service of Ghana, led by Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, which found no fault with the expenditure.

Asaaseradio.com also mentioned MIIF officials, including Justina Nelson, as ignoring legal advice from OSAD Legal Services regarding an alleged attempt to alter the Fund’s 2024 audit report. The article claimed that OSAD had advised MIIF against such actions but that these warnings were ignored.

In response, OSAD Legal Services PRUC issued a strongly worded statement, denying any involvement in audit-related matters. It stated that the claims made in the article were “unverified” and urged the outlet to conduct proper due diligence before publishing such content. The firm also demanded a full retraction within three days or face potential legal action.

MIIF has consistently dismissed the allegations as false and baseless, insisting that it has never attempted to alter signed financial statements. Instead, ongoing discussions with the Office of the Auditor-General are focused on ensuring that the final audit report accurately reflects issues raised in the auditors’ Management Letter, a standard process.

The controversy has also been linked to a broader campaign by unnamed individuals to tarnish the reputation of MIIF and its CEO, Justina Nelson. Some reports suggest that this campaign may be part of an effort to pressure the CEO into prematurely releasing the audit report. One source even claimed that the false narratives were intended to facilitate foreign travel for certain former officials who were reportedly denied such opportunities because the audit report had not been uploaded to the Fund’s website.

Independent analysts have urged the public to disregard the publications, calling them attempts to divert attention from ongoing investigations involving former officials. MIIF has reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and due process, stating that it will continue to cooperate fully with the Auditor-General despite the false publications.

The Agyapa deal, initially presented as a way to provide long-term capital for infrastructure and development without increasing public debt, has faced significant backlash. Critics argue that the arrangement ceded control over a substantial portion of Ghana’s mining royalties to a private entity based in a financial secrecy jurisdiction, raising concerns about transparency, fiscal risk, and public interest.

The deal also faced scrutiny for possibly violating procurement and financial-management laws, with critics claiming that key legal procedures, including parliamentary scrutiny and evaluation of bids, were bypassed or compromised. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) reportedly found that payments under the deal were made to entities connected to high-ranking government figures without delivering clear benefits to the state.

Despite these concerns, the Agyapa deal was eventually suspended in 2021 after widespread public outcry, civil society pressure, legal challenges, and scrutiny by oversight bodies. The OSP’s Corruption Risk Assessment characterized the transaction as fraught with procurement rigging, statutory breaches, and conflicts of interest, describing the overall structure as “a poisoned tree” that cannot be redeemed.

As of the latest disclosures, the state has not recovered the US$12 million spent on the deal, and many of the contracts and payments remain under investigation. The ongoing legal and financial battles surrounding the Agyapa Royalties Limited deal highlight the complexity of managing public resources and the need for transparency and accountability in large-scale financial transactions.