The Imani Centre for Policy and Education (IMANI) has raised serious concerns over Ghana’s lithium mining agreement with Atlantic Lithium, alleging that key aspects of the deal have been misrepresented to the public and that opportunities for local refining may have been overstated. Questions have also been raised about royalty arrangements, parliamentary approval, and transparency in government negotiations.
In a series of posts on X, the Honorary Vice President of IMANI, Mr. Bright Simons, claimed that successive Ministers responsible for mining “have all been playing us” by presenting Atlantic Lithium as open to refining lithium in Ghana, while privately accepting conclusions that refining is not commercially viable.
According to Mr. Bright Simons, who said he received the information from a confidential source, the lease agreement included a provision requiring Atlantic Lithium to undertake a “scoping study” on lithium refining.
However, he alleged that the company had already completed such a study as far back as 2024 and had concluded that refining lithium in Ghana was not viable.
“It is being suggested that it is all SHAKARA! That we are being played! Since 2024!” he wrote.
He further claimed that Atlantic Lithium reached this conclusion by underestimating the available lithium resource—an issue IMANI says it will elaborate on later.
Attempts to Engage Policymakers
Mr. Simons explained that IMANI chose to raise the matter publicly after repeated attempts to work with government officials on building a national fiscal model for lithium negotiations were allegedly rejected.
“We are doing it publicly because despite all efforts by IMANI to engage policymakers… Mr. Minister flatly refuses to engage in good faith,” he said.
He alleged that this refusal persisted despite calls by the President of the Republic for all stakeholders to collaborate to secure the best possible outcome for Ghana.
According to Mr. Bright Simons, the government’s approach undermines efforts to base negotiations on rigorous data and a shared fiscal model.
Royalty Framework and Fiscal Concerns
The IMANI Vice President also criticised the royalty structure presented to Parliament, describing it as a sliding-scale framework that, according to him, is not backed by a fiscal model developed through open consultations with the policy community.
He questioned the baseline lithium royalty of 7 percent, noting that several analysts had advised the rate should not fall below 10 percent, as investors would still remain profitable.
“And he did all this while ignoring the offer to work together to build a common fiscal model to determine what is fair,” Mr Bright Simons said.
Mr Simons further alleged that the lithium agreement presented to Parliament included a provision requiring Atlantic Lithium to conduct a scoping study on refining, despite the Minister allegedly knowing that such a study had already been completed and was being used to justify the company’s position against local refining.
“We need Mr. Minister to respond directly and publicly to these matters,” he stated.
Broader Implications
Concluding his posts, Mr. Bright Simons warned that the lithium negotiations risk becoming “a classic case study of Katanomics: high political accountability, but low policy accountability.” He suggested that while political leaders may face scrutiny, critical technical decisions affecting national wealth are not receiving the necessary policy oversight.
The allegations by IMANI highlight the tension between Ghana’s desire to develop local value addition in strategic minerals and the need for transparency and data-driven fiscal frameworks to ensure fair national returns.
As of filing, the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources had not issued an official response to the claims.
