Management of CMS-PRO has denied allegations by Narawa Company Limited that it violently took over its mining concession at Nsuapemso in the Fanteakwa South District of the Eastern Region.
In a statement responding to Narawa’s claims, CMS-PRO said it acquired the concession through legitimate processes after Narawa allegedly encountered compliance challenges with regulatory authorities and the Minerals Commission.
The company, which describes itself as Ghanaian-owned, maintained that it possesses the necessary documentation and approvals to operate the concession.
CMS-PRO also rejected allegations of killings, armed attacks, equipment theft and illegal mining, insisting that its approach to taking over the site was diplomatic but was met with resistance from some Narawa personnel, resulting in tensions.
The company further accused Narawa’s Managing Director, Amuda Yusif, of bringing armed men from Ashaiman and Obuasi to the concession to provide protection during an attempt to access the site.
According to CMS-PRO, the incident involved gunfire, damage to offices and the removal of items, which it claims Narawa subsequently reported as stolen.
CMS-PRO also stated that Mr Yusif and ten other individuals were arrested and arraigned before the Osino District Court, where they were granted bail pending further investigations.
The company maintained that the deaths and injuries recorded during the dispute resulted from attacks against its workers and security personnel, disputing Narawa’s account of the incidents.
CMS-PRO also accused Narawa of having a strained relationship with host communities, alleging that abandoned mining pits had exposed farmers and schoolchildren to danger.
It expressed its willingness to cooperate with ongoing investigations, insisting that it obtained the concession through legitimate means and remains committed to operating within the law.
The response follows a press statement by Narawa Company Limited calling for urgent government intervention over alleged killings, the theft of mining equipment and continued unauthorised mining activities at the concession.
The two companies have presented conflicting accounts of the events surrounding the disputed concession.
