The Minority in Parliament has sharply criticised the government’s decision to withdraw the proposed lithium agreement from parliamentary consideration, describing the move as a clear admission of failure in the handling of one of the most strategic mineral resources.

According to the Minority, the reversal reflects poor preparation, weak policy coherence, and an attempt by the government to retreat from scrutiny after initially forcefully defending the agreement.

Addressing a media briefing in Accra on Monday, January 26, 2026, Minority leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said the withdrawal of the lithium deal did not arise from genuine stakeholder consultation, as the government now claims, but rather from mounting public and parliamentary pressure that exposed serious flaws in the agreement.

He argued that a well-negotiated and nationally beneficial deal would not have collapsed so easily under scrutiny.

Contentious Agreement

The lithium agreement, linked to the Ewoyaa lithium project, in the Central region has been under intense national debate since it was first introduced to Parliament.

Lithium, a critical mineral used in electric vehicle batteries and renewable energy technologies, has been positioned by government as central to the green transition and industrialisation agenda.

Successive administrations have described the mineral as a potential game-changer, capable of anchoring local value addition and new manufacturing opportunities.

However, the Minority recalled that while in opposition, the current governing side strongly criticised earlier lithium arrangements, insisting that Ghana must secure better royalties, stronger local content provisions, and clearer industrial benefits.

Yet, after assuming office, the same government returned to Parliament with a revised agreement which, according to the Minority, offered weaker protections and less value to the state than what had previously been promised.

Contradictions And Parliamentary Reversal

The Minority said the controversy deepened when the Majority side vigorously defended the agreement on the floor of Parliament, portraying it as balanced, lawful, and in the national interest.

That posture, they noted, made the subsequent withdrawal even more troubling.

According to the caucus, the Majority later justified the withdrawal by claiming the agreement required further consultations.

The Minority dismissed that explanation, arguing that consultation should precede, not follow, a formal parliamentary process.

In their view, the sequence of events amounted to confusion rather than responsible governance.

They further alleged that the withdrawal was executed quietly, without a formal and transparent explanation to Parliament.

The Minority accused the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah, and other government officials of “coming through the back door” to pull the agreement once it became clear that it could not withstand public and legislative interrogation.

Questions Over Due Diligence And National Interest

The minority caucus said the episode raises fundamental questions about whether adequate due diligence was conducted before the agreement was laid before Parliament, whether the terms were competently negotiated, and whether the national interest was truly prioritised over short-term considerations.

Warning that such missteps could leave Ghana short-changed, the Minority stressed that agreements involving critical minerals demand discipline, clarity, and a consistent policy framework.

They cautioned against what they described as trial-and-error decision-making in a sector that could define the country’s economic future.

Call For Stronger Safeguards

The Minority MPs emphasised that lithium and other strategic minerals must be governed by robust national safeguards, including transparency, value-for-money assessments, strong local content requirements, environmental protection standards, and long-term industrial planning.

They argued that without these pillars, Ghana risks repeating past mistakes seen in gold and other extractive sectors.

The caucus said the government’s retreat on the lithium deal should serve as a warning to Parliament and the public that extractive agreements—especially those tied to critical minerals—require stricter scrutiny and broader national consensus.

Looking ahead, the Minority pledged to push for tougher parliamentary oversight of any reintroduced lithium agreement.

They insisted that any future deal must be accompanied by clear explanations, improved fiscal and developmental terms, and full transparency.

Parliament, the caucus warned, must not be reduced to a rubber stamp for poorly prepared or politically expedient policies.

Instead, they said, it must assert its role as the final guard of the national interest in managing the strategic mineral resources.