An orchestrated effort to conceal the US$12 million spent on the failed Agyapa Royalties Limited deal faced strong opposition from a leading law firm, OSAD Legal Services PRUC, through an official disclaimer. It demanded the immediate retraction of what it describes as a “malicious” and “fabricated” online publication by asaaseradio.com.
The law firm accused the media outlet owned by Gabby Asare-Ochere Darko, one of the many figures involved in the Agyapa deal, along with the then Finance Minister, Ken Ofori-Atta, of intentionally trying to cause trouble against the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF), the parent company of Agyapa Royalties Limited, set up in the tax haven of Jersey.
The Agyapa deal was designed by the Akufo-Addo government to monetise Ghana’s future gold royalty revenue by transferring rights to a special-purpose vehicle, Agyapa Royalties Limited (ARL). Under the plan, ARL would raise funds on both the local and international capital markets, including the Ghana Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange, in exchange for future receipts from gold production royalties.
There were arguments about the undervaluation of royalties and national assets, with analysts estimating that, by transferring future royalty revenues (from 48 major gold‑mining leases) to ARL for a one-off upfront payment between US$500 million and US$750 million, Ghana stood to lose significantly compared with the value of royalties over time.
On 13 February 2024, when the then MIIF CEO, Edward Nana Yaw Koranteng, appeared before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), he informed the committee that approximately US$12 million had already been spent on the Agyapa deal before the scheme was suspended.
Interestingly, media reports in selected newspapers and online portals, including asaaseradio.com and MyJoyOnline.com, discuss a purported audit report on the MIIF by the Audit Service of Ghana, led by Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, which reportedly found no fault with the US$12 million spent on the Agyapa Royalties deal.
asaaseradio.com had mentioned MIIF’s officials, including Justina Nelson, as ignoring legal advice from OSAD Legal Services regarding an alleged attempt to alter the Fund’s 2024 audit report to nail Edward Nana Yaw Koranteng and Prof. Douglas Boateng, Ex-MIIF Board Chairman, who are subject to OSP’s investigations.
MyJoyOnline.com, also yesterday, 9 December 2025, under the headline “Audit Service rejects calls for restatement of MIIF 2024 financials; flags concerns over Agyapa”.
The Multimedia Group platform also stated that the Auditor-General’s Department had rejected calls from the MIIF to review and restate its 2024 audited financial statements, asserting that the Audit Service maintained that the issues raised by MIIF did not amount to material or pervasive misstatements requiring a restatement.
The publication was later removed from the site, according to The Herald’s insiders, following protests by MIIF.
In a strongly worded statement signed by the Head of Chambers, OSAD Legal Services PRUC distanced itself entirely from what it called the “hearsay and unverified information” contained in the article by asaaseradio.com. It clarified that its engagement with MIIF relates solely to legal matters in a pending court case and has no connection to any audit processes.
The disputed article, published on Monday, 8 December 2025, and titled “Auditor-General Rebukes MIIF CEO Over Audit Rewrite Attempt,” claimed that OSAD Legal Services had provided expert legal advice to MIIF regarding an alleged attempt to alter the Fund’s 2024 audit report.
The story carried a paragraph under the sub-heading “Legal Advisers Warned MIIF — But Were Ignored”, alleging that OSAD had advised MIIF on the purported audit controversy but that the Fund’s management failed to heed the advice.
“We do not associate ourselves with the unverified claims made in the said publication,” the statement stressed. “Our role is purely legal, and any suggestion that we provided advice on audit matters is false.”
OSAD has therefore demanded a full retraction of the article within three days of the notice. It warned that failure to comply would leave the firm with no option but to initiate legal action to protect its reputation and enforce its rights.
The firm also urged asaaseradio.com to undertake due diligence going forward, advising the outlet to “confirm any new information from appropriate and authorised sources to avoid disseminating false information to the public.”
The controversial publication forms part of what MIIF has described as a coordinated campaign by some former executives and ex-board members to tarnish the reputation of the Fund and its Chief Executive Officer, Justina Nelson.
The article claimed that the Auditor-General had issued a sharp rebuke to MIIF for allegedly attempting to “rewrite” already audited and signed financial statements for the 2024 financial year. It further alleged that MIIF had failed to comply with Right to Information (RTI) requests submitted by a former board member seeking access to the Fund’s audited financial documents.
The authors went on to claim, without evidence, that MIIF’s CEO had attempted to pressure the Ghana Audit Service into restating the audited accounts and that OSAD Legal Services, led by Dr Eric Oduro Osae, had advised the Fund against such a move.
MIIF has repeatedly dismissed these claims as “false, baseless, and fabricated”, insisting that at no point has it attempted to alter any signed financial statements. Rather, ongoing discussions with the Office of the Auditor-General concern ensuring that the final audit report accurately reflects issues raised in the auditors’ Management Letter, an entirely legitimate and routine process.
According to MIIF, the wave of negative publications appears to be part of a broader strategy by unnamed individuals to pressure the CEO to publish the audit report prematurely, with one source even threatening further attacks if their demands are not met.
Some of the individuals allegedly involved in the media campaign are currently under investigation by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), MIIF added.
One editor associated with the publications is also reported to have admitted that the false narratives were intended to facilitate foreign travel for certain former officials, who, according to him, were being denied such opportunities because the audit report had not been uploaded to the Fund’s website.
MIIF believes the campaign is further linked to a Right to Information request filed in September 2025 by a former board member, who later petitioned the RTI Tribunal after the Fund’s response was delayed. MIIF says the recent publications appear designed to pre-empt that process.
Independent analysts following the developments have encouraged the public to disregard the publications, calling them attempts to divert attention from ongoing investigations involving certain former officials.
MIIF has reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and due process, stating: “The Fund remains resolute and will continue to cooperate fully with the Auditor-General despite these false publications.”
MyJoyOnline.com had cited a letter to the MIIF CEO dated 12 November 2025. The Audit Service responded to concerns outlined in a 31 October 2025 communication and discussed during a meeting on 7 November 2025.
The letter stated that characterising the alleged misstatements as “pervasive” is misleading and clarified that, in an audit context, the term applies to issues affecting the financial statements as a whole rather than isolated items.
On the specific matter of MIIF’s investment in Agyapa Royalties Ltd, MyJoyOnline.com said that the auditors noted that while International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS 10) and International Accounting Standards (IAS 27) might suggest that costs relating to the establishment and planned listing of Agyapa should be expensed, doing so would imply a complete write-off of public funds.
MyJoyOnline.com said that such an action, as noted in the letter, would contravene the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921), in the absence of parliamentary approval.
The audit service also highlighted that the final accounting treatment depends on decisions by the MIIF Board, through the Minister of Finance, and on guidance from the Attorney-General, particularly given the halted Initial Public Offering (IPO) process.
The auditors concluded by reaffirming their opinion on the 2024 financial statements. They expressed their willingness to cooperate with MIIF on decisions and approvals in the 2025 financial year, which will be considered in the upcoming audit.
The Akufo-Addo government, on the Agyapa deal, argued the arrangement would provide long-term capital for infrastructure and development without increasing the country’s explicit public debt burden.
Under the relevant provision, ARL was to be given rights over royalties from a set of mining leases (48 leases, with first refusal over additional leases), including a 49% share of ARL being listed publicly, allowing investors to buy into future royalty flows.
Critics, including civil‑society groups, opposition parties and others, raised a number of serious concerns about the deal under the Akufo-Addo government.
The arrangement was criticised for ceding control over a substantial portion of the country’s mining royalties permanently to a private entity based in a financial secrecy jurisdiction. This raised concerns about transparency, long-term fiscal risk, and whether the deal undermined the public interest.
The deal was flagged as potentially violating procurement and financial‑management laws, with critics saying many of the required legal procedures, including proper parliamentary scrutiny and evaluation of bids, had been bypassed or compromised.
The audit and risk‑assessment by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) reportedly found that payments under the deal had been made to certain entities connected to high-ranking government figures, including companies linked to the then‑Finance Minister and associates of President Akufo-Addo, including Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko, without delivering clear benefit to the state.
Databank, owned by Ken Ofori-Atta, and Africa Legal Resources, owned by Gabby. They supposedly provided financial and legal services.
Because ARL was incorporated in a jurisdiction with secrecy laws, critics warned that the structure could facilitate money laundering, obscure the identities of beneficial owners, and lead to illicit financial flows at the expense of transparency and accountability.
Civil society groups noted that the public was not meaningfully consulted, and the potential long-term impact on Ghana’s mineral revenues and future generations was insufficiently considered.
Because of all of the above, many described the arrangement as a “mortgage” on Ghana’s mineral future, a one-off cash injection in exchange for long-term, recurring national resource income.
According to MIIF’s disclosures, Edward Nana Yaw Koranteng reported that the Akufo-Addo government had already committed USD 12 million to the deal, covering the setup of Agyapa, consultancy fees, office rentals, and planned initial public offering (IPO) costs.
Despite this expenditure, the deal was eventually suspended in 2021 after widespread public outcry, civil society pressure, legal challenges, and scrutiny by the OSP and other oversight bodies.
The OSP’s Corruption Risk Assessment reportedly concluded that the transaction was fraught with procurement rigging, statutory breaches, and conflicts of interest. It lacked transparency in some cases, characterising the overall structure as “a poisoned tree” that cannot be redeemed.
As of the latest public disclosures, the state has not recovered the USD 12 million spent, and many of the contracts and payments associated with the deal remain under investigation.
