The Minerals Commission has urged Northern Ashanti Mines Limited to pursue its legal challenge against the termination of its mining leases and prospecting licences in court rather than commenting publicly.The Commission says the company acknowledged receipt of the termination notice but subsequently instituted legal action against the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources, the Commission and the Attorney-General.The dispute follows an operation on Thursday, October 22, during which Commission officials, accompanied by military personnel, entered the company’s concession to enforce the termination of its mineral rights.The Commission cited the company’s failure to pay statutory fees and undertake meaningful mining operations for more than two years as grounds for the decision. It says Northern Ashanti Mines owed US$8.33 million in outstanding Annual Mineral Right fees for its mining leases covering 2010 to 2025, as well as US$49,928 in fees relating to prospecting licences between 2019 and 2025.The Commission maintains that it followed the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176), and the terms of the agreements with the company. It also says the company was given several opportunities to regularise its position but failed to do so.Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, October 29, the Minerals Commission’s Chief Executive Officer, Isaac Tandoh, said the company should let the judicial process determine the dispute.“The company duly acknowledged receipt of the termination notice, and yet it has chosen the courts. So we advise that they should pursue the courts and not the court of public opinion,” he said.Mr Tandoh also rejected the company’s position that it was seeking dialogue, arguing that its decision to sue the relevant authorities while making public statements amounted to pursuing the dispute in court and through the media simultaneously.“We state plainly, a company that sues the Honourable Minister, the Minerals Commission and the Attorney General is not a company that is seeking dialogue. It is a company seeking to litigate in court and in the media simultaneously. This is improper, and it is contemptuous of the judicial process,” he said.He added that the termination had caused the mineral rights to revert to the state but did not extinguish the company’s outstanding financial obligations. The Commission said it will continue pursuing recovery of the outstanding fees.