Calls for Ghana to take greater control of its mineral wealth are growing louder amid a global resurgence in economic nationalism, but policy analyst Bright Simons argues that ownership alone will not transform the country’s fortunes without strong policies and accountability.
According to Simons, debates around “Ghana taking control of its minerals” have gained momentum as countries worldwide pursue what he describes as “strategic autonomy,” “geopolitical decoupling,” and “deglobalisation.”
He noted that even traditionally market-friendly economies are increasingly embracing state-led control over strategic resources.
“Economic nationalism is sexy again,” Simons said, pointing to moves by countries such as Chile to nationalise lithium resources.
However, he questioned whether Ghana’s current resource debate is genuinely about nationalism or merely a superficial political slogan driven by public emotions surrounding the booming gold sector.
Gold Sector Dominates National Conversation
Simons observed that discussions about mineral ownership in Ghana tend to focus heavily on gold because of its visibility and profitability.
“Ghanaians want Ghana to take control of the country’s gold mines,” he stated, adding that many people either overlook or forget the country’s other mineral resources.
He argued that while public attention remains fixed on gold, the realities across other mining sectors reveal deeper structural problems that cannot be solved simply by changing ownership.
In the diamond sector, Simons said Ghanaian elites have largely controlled operations for more than five decades, yet the industry has suffered from chronic underinvestment and eventual collapse.
He further criticised the handling of manganese, lithium and bauxite resources, claiming that foreign dominance in those sectors occurred with the active support of sections of the Ghanaian elite.
Poor Policy Identified as Main Problem
Simons stressed that Ghana’s inability to leverage mining revenues for national transformation stems primarily from weak policy decisions rather than foreign ownership alone.
“Even for gold, we now have 50 per cent of production in the hands of Ghanaians,” he explained, referencing the country’s small-scale mining industry, which is reserved exclusively for Ghanaian citizens.
“If Ghana has not been able to use resources from mining to transform, the biggest reason must be because of poor policy. End of story,” he added.
The policy analyst also criticised recent attempts to portray the transfer of mining assets to politically connected local individuals as a form of “resource nationalism.”
He warned that simply placing mineral leases in the hands of a few Ghanaian businessmen does not amount to collective ownership or national benefit.
“For all you know, such individuals can send most of the profits overseas and leave the wreckage behind for us,” Simons argued, citing risks including environmental destruction, employee impoverishment, loan defaults, weak research investment and declining mineral reserves.
Lessons from Australia and Europe
Drawing comparisons with major mineral-producing nations, Simons noted that some of the world’s richest mining economies continue to rely heavily on foreign investors while still ensuring broad national benefits.
He identified Australia as the world’s most mineral-rich country per capita and said between 85 and 90 per cent of its major mining projects over two decades were driven by foreign investors.
He added that similar trends exist in mineral-rich European countries such as Germany, Sweden and Poland.“Still, they ensure that the minerals benefit the citizens. That is what ultimately collective ownership delivers,” Simons said.
The comments come at a time when debates over mineral ownership, local participation and state control continue to shape Ghana’s political and economic discourse as the country seeks to maximise returns from its natural resources.
READ ALSO: Ghana rules out Eurobond market return in 2026 after IMF programme exit
