The Government has rejected a comprehensive package of constitutional amendments recommended by the Committee to alter the governance and legal regulation of the nation’s natural resources.
The decision maintains the current constitutional framework oversight regarding natural resource concessions, regulatory authority, and public ownership.
By turning down these proposed modifications, the Executive branch signals its confidence in existing institutional mechanisms and judicial precedent over major constitutional restructuring.
“The Government does not accept these recommendations. As regards Article 268, the Supreme Court in Ndebugre v Attorney-General has already interpreted the scope of parliamentary ratification of natural resource transactions. The existing constitutional text, as interpreted by the Court, provides a workable framework that does not require amendment.”
Government Whitepaper
Expanding on this official position, the Government contends that the proposed amendments are both unnecessary and counterproductive to effective natural resource management.
While the reform recommendations aimed to enhance parliamentary checks, establish new coordinating entities, and alter presidential trusteeship, the administration maintains that existing statutory frameworks offer sufficient safeguards.
This refusal highlights a fundamental policy divergence in the extractive sector between advocates seeking constitutional reform and an Executive favoring statutory regulation and executive coordination.
Structural Reform Proposals Advocate Parliamentary Checks and Public Trust
The Committee advocated far-reaching constitutional modifications designed to tighten controls over resource concessions and enhance governance coherence across the extractive landscape.
A central recommendation involved amending Article 268 to require that “parliamentary ratification of natural resource transactions be exercised in accordance with prescribed constitutional principles.”
Crucially, the Committee proposed that prior parliamentary approval must precede the actual signing of any natural resource concession or grant by the Executive, thereby limiting executive discretion in concluding resource deals.
Furthermore, the Committee recommended amending Article 269 to obligate Parliament to enact legislation establishing a coordinating authority for natural resources.
This proposed body would be mandated to promote “coherence, coordination, and compliance with constitutional principles across all sectoral institutions and regulatory bodies.”
Additionally, the Committee called for amending the natural resources vesting provisions under Article 257(6) to align with a public trust framework, proposing to re-vest natural resources across various sectoral commissions rather than in the President.
Beyond structural institutional changes, the Committee recommended incorporating basic principles governing natural resources, introducing dedicated provisions on ocean governance and the blue economy, creating a distinct offence of ecocide, and allocating a percentage of gross mineral revenue directly to mining host communities.
Executive Rejects Amendments Citing Precedent, Bureaucracy, and Trusteeship Integrity
Responding to these proposals, the Executive firmly defended the current constitutional design, arguing that existing legal and administrative structures remain fully effective.
Regarding Article 268, the Government emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ndebugre v Attorney-General has already settled the legal scope of parliamentary ratification for natural resource transactions.
The administration maintained that “the existing constitutional text, as interpreted by the Court, provides a workable framework that does not require amendment,” making constitutional revisions unnecessary.
Addressing the Article 269 proposal for a new natural resource entity, the Executive warned that establishing a coordinating authority would “add another layer of bureaucracy on top of the existing commissions and regulatory bodies.“
Pointing out that heads of these regulatory commissions are presidential appointees, the Government asserted that “coordination can be achieved through executive direction without creating an additional constitutional institution.”
Furthermore, the administration rejected the proposed re-vesting of natural resources under Article 257(6) away from the President into sectoral commissions.
The Executive noted that “the trusteeship system as currently constituted has not been abused,” warning that vesting natural resources across multiple commissions “may lead to administrative fragmentation and competing claims of authority.”
Existing Statutory Frameworks Deemed Sufficient for Extractive Sector Reforms
Rather than amending the Constitution, the Government insisted that the broader policy objectives highlighted by the Committee can be efficiently achieved through existing statutory legislation.
The Executive noted that critical sector concerns such as ocean governance, the creation of an ecocide offence, mineral revenue sharing for mining communities, and foundational principles of natural resources governance do not require constitutional amendments.
Instead, these matters can be fully addressed within the flexible framework of ordinary statutes.
Specifically, the Government cited the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), the Fisheries Act, 2002 (Act 625), the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, 2011 (Act 815), and the Environmental Protection Act, 2025 (Act 1124) as appropriate legislative instruments.
According to the administration, these existing statutes already provide the legal machinery needed to regulate marine environments, manage extractive revenues, enforce environmental compliance, and support mining communities.
By relying on statutory enforcement rather than constitutional alteration, the Government concluded that “a constitutional amendment is not necessary to achieve these objectives.”
READ ALSO: Mahama Government Backs Five-Year Presidential Term Reform
