A private citizen and New Patriotic Party (NPP) Volta Regional Youth Organizer, Emmanuel Senyo Amekplenu, has challenged an invitation by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to appear before it over his petition concerning President John Mahama and the takeover of the Damang Mine by Engineers and Planners Limited (E&P).
Mr Amekplenu, in a letter dated September 22, 2026, has raised a preliminary objection to the Commission’s request for him to appear on October 5, arguing that the invitation does not adequately state what further information or evidence it requires from him.
He says the invitation, which asks him to appear “for an interview by the Commission”, is too broad because it does not identify the particular allegations, documents or issues arising from his petition that require clarification.
“I strongly object to this kind of blanket invitation by your outfit,” he stated in the letter addressed to the Commissioner of CHRAJ.
Mr Amekplenu is the petitioner who has asked CHRAJ to investigate alleged conflict of interest and abuse of executive power in connection with the Damang Mine transaction.
Engineers and Planners, owned by businessman Ibrahim Mahama, the President’s brother, was selected by the government in April 2026 as the successful bidder to take over the operation of the mine after Gold Fields’ lease expired.
The Minerals Commission’s tender process involved four companies, with E&P emerging as the successful bidder after the evaluation process. The mine was formally handed over to E&P on April 18, 2026.
Mr Amekplenu’s petition to CHRAJ argues that the relationship between the President and the beneficiary of the transaction raises questions under Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution, which addresses conflicts between the personal interests of public officers and their official duties.
He has also alleged that the transaction received Cabinet approval and is seeking an examination of the circumstances surrounding the process, including Cabinet records and other official documents.
In his latest letter, however, the petitioner says CHRAJ has not told him what aspect of his petition requires further explanation.
“If the Commission requires a particular document, it ought to identify the document. If it requires clarification of a particular allegation, it ought to identify the allegation. If it requires further evidence concerning a particular transaction, occurrence or person, it ought to identify that matter,” he argued.
Mr Amekplenu further contends that CHRAJ’s statutory authority to question a complainant does not remove the requirement for procedural fairness.
He acknowledged the Commission’s powers under Section 15 of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act, 1993 (Act 456), including the authority to summon a complainant and examine the person on oath or affirmation.
“I do not dispute that statutory power and same must be made clear to the Commission,” he said.
His objection, he explained, concerns how that power has been exercised in his particular case.
“The existence of a power to summon a complainant does not mean that a complainant can be summoned without the Commission identifying, at least in reasonably intelligible terms, the information which it requires from him,” the petitioner stated.
He also argues that the Commission should not expect him to determine for itself what additional evidence may be required for an investigation after he has already submitted his petition.
“The petitioner has already discharged the obvious obligation of placing his complaint before the commission,” he said.
Mr Amekplenu is therefore asking CHRAJ to provide particulars before he attends the proposed interview.
Among other things, he wants the Commission to identify the specific allegations on which it requires further information, the issues arising from his petition that require clarification, and any documents or evidence it expects him to produce.
He is also asking CHRAJ to disclose any new matter that may have emerged during its investigation and clarify the specific purpose and scope of the proposed interview.
According to him, the request for clarification should not be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate.
“This request should not be misconstrued as an unwillingness to cooperate with the Commission,” he said.
“On the contrary, I remain fully prepared to cooperate with the Commission within the proper parameters of its request.”
He has consequently asked that the October 5 interview be held in abeyance until CHRAJ provides the requested particulars.
The petitioner has also stressed that his objection does not amount to a withdrawal or modification of his original complaint.
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this letter constitutes a withdrawal, abandonment or modification of the petition previously submitted to the Commission, nor should it be construed as a refusal to cooperate with any properly particularised request made pursuant to the Commission’s lawful investigative powers,” he stated.
The Damang Mine transaction
The controversy centres on the transfer of the Damang Mine, formerly operated by Gold Fields Ghana Limited, to E&P following a competitive tender process.
Government confirmed E&P as the successful bidder in April after four companies submitted bids. The company was selected after the tender committee evaluated the bids against technical, financial and other requirements.
At the formal handover ceremony, E&P Chief Executive Ibrahim Mahama said the company had been involved in mining at Damang for decades and wanted to move beyond its role as a mining contractor.
Mr Mahama also rejected the suggestion that he had suddenly sought to acquire the mine, saying Gold Fields had approached E&P as part of its plans to exit the concession.
Gold Fields has separately stated that its Damang lease expired on April 18, 2026, following a one-year extension agreed with the government after its earlier application for a longer renewal was rejected. The company said decisions on the mine’s future ownership rested with the Ghanaian government.
Mr Amekplenu’s petition, however, focuses on whether the President’s relationship with Ibrahim Mahama and any alleged involvement in decisions connected to the transaction raise constitutional conflict-of-interest concerns.
