A major policy storm has erupted over Ghana’s proposed lithium mining agreement after the government abruptly withdrew the document from Parliament amid fierce public outcry.
At the heart of the controversy is the decision to slash the state’s royalty share from a previously negotiated 10% to 5%, a move critics say is unjustifiable, economically unsound and politically inconsistent.
Get more exclusive breaking news updates on our WhatsApp channel .
The earlier deal, negotiated under the 8th Parliament but not ratified, provided for a 10% royalty and 18% carried interest, giving Ghana a 23% cumulative stake.
The newly introduced version cut the royalty to 5%, setting off what observers describe as a “too loud” backlash that forced the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources to pull the agreement back for further consultations.
Much of the anger stems from the government’s claim that global lithium prices had “drastically fallen,” which it used to justify the royalty reduction.
However, research presented during the debate shows the opposite: on November 19, the price was $1,165 per ton, having stayed above $1,000 for over a month.
In 2024, when the company previously pushed for ratification, the price hovered around $700, meaning current market conditions should favour higher, not lower, state revenue.
This contradiction sparked questions about which data the ministry relied upon, and why fiscal terms would be weakened in a stronger price environment.
The discussion also exposed a deeper structural issue: Ghana’s Minerals and Mining Act, which caps royalties between 3% and 6%, limiting the country’s ability to negotiate higher returns even for strategic minerals like lithium.
Speakers insisted that this legal ceiling is outdated, inadequate and detrimental to national interest.
Calls are growing for Parliament to amend the Act so Ghana can secure more meaningful value from its mineral wealth.
The controversy took on sharp political tones as participants accused the current NDC administration of hypocrisy.
Critics noted that when in opposition, leading party figures and aligned CSOs condemned the previously proposed 10% royalty as insufficient.
Now in office, the same actors are accused of backing a 5% deal without the outspokenness they once displayed. According to commentators, the withdrawal was not evidence of a responsive government but a “knee-jerk reaction” to public pressure.
Beneath the political exchanges lies a deeper issue of trust. Many Ghanaians doubt that successive governments, regardless of party, prioritise the long-term national interest when negotiating natural resource agreements.
With the mining company reportedly not requesting the royalty reduction, critics questioned who stood to benefit from the revised terms. Several speakers argued that without public pressure, the deal would have passed quietly.
The broader concern echoes a familiar theme: whether Ghana’s mineral wealth becomes a blessing or a curse.
Despite abundant resources, the country routinely turns to the IMF and World Bank to stabilise its economy, an irony not lost on analysts who argue that poorly structured mining agreements are partly to blame.
Looking ahead, stakeholders are demanding major improvements before any new agreement returns to Parliament.
Proposals include raising the royalty rate to above 10%, adopting a scalable royalty system that adjusts with global prices, and preserving community-benefit provisions such as dedicating 1% of gross revenue to local development.
Some more radical voices suggest Ghana should eventually pursue 100% state ownership of its lithium resources, in line with African Charter principles on community-controlled natural resources.
With lithium set to play a pivotal role in the global energy transition, the withdrawal of the agreement marks not the end of the debate, but the beginning of a national reckoning over how Ghana should manage one of the most valuable minerals of the century.
