By Vincent Kwofie
An independent review of the ongoing gold trade dispute involving Sesi-Edem Company Limited and JG Resources Ltd indicates that public narratives surrounding the matter oversimplify what is, in reality, a technically complex commercial disagreement.
Contrary to claims circulating in parts of the media, available evidence suggests the dispute centres on unresolved contractual performance, assay discrepancies, and outstanding supply obligations rather than mere documentation controversies.
The Core Issue: Contract Performance
At the heart of the dispute is a gold supply agreement under which approximately GHS 57.7 million was paid for the delivery of 50 kilograms of gold. Payments were made in three tranches between June and July 2025, based on commercial invoices linked to international shipments.
According to internal assay records from Sesi-Edem, the company claims it supplied 30.8 kilograms of gold, valued at approximately GHS 35.54 million, leaving an unresolved balance of about GHS 22.16 million.
However, the official accredited refinery assay in Dubai, which the Sale and Purchase Agreement designates as the final determinant for settlement, confirms delivery of only 29.2 kilograms of gold. Even by the supplier’s own records, approximately 19.2 kilograms remained outstanding as of July 2025—an issue central to the dispute.
Addressing Key Claims Under Scrutiny
Myth 1: “It’s Only a Documentation Dispute”
Evidence indicates otherwise. The disagreement stems from:
–Variances between supplier-origin assay reports and refinery assay results
–Shipment weight and purity inconsistencies
–Outstanding delivery obligations tied to payments already made
In international gold trading, assay alignment directly determines settlement value, making these discrepancies financially material.
Myth 2: “Forgery Allegations Against JG Resources Are Proven”
No regulatory or judicial authority has publicly established forgery claims against JG Resources or its officers. Legal analysts note that such allegations remain unproven assertions until determined by competent investigative or judicial bodies.
JG Resources maintains that its recovery claims are based on:
–Contractual performance obligations
–Accredited assay-confirmed supply reconciliation
–Standard financial accounting principles
The company argues that forgery allegations do not negate unresolved supply and reconciliation issues.
Myth 3: “The Supply Window Is Still Open”
Industry practice complicates this claim. Gold prices fluctuate daily, and supply contracts typically rely on rapid delivery timelines to limit exposure to volatility. Documentation reviewed indicates:
–Payments were structured around expected delivery within roughly 72 hours.
–Discussions reportedly occurred about contract abrogation following changes in global gold prices.
–Dispute resolution efforts were initiated but failed to achieve a settlement
These factors suggest a contested performance timeline rather than an open-ended supply window.
Assay Discrepancies: The Technical Heart of the Dispute
Industry experts emphasise that assay reports determine:
–Gold purity levels
–Net fine gold weight
–Final settlement value
Differences between supplier-generated assay documentation and accredited refinery results in Dubai raise questions around:
–Chain of custody integrity
–Shipment composition consistency
–Accuracy of financial reconciliation
Requests for independent verification by GoldBod have reportedly not yielded documentation to date, further complicating resolution efforts.
Governance and Public Interest
Corporate records list Gabriel Kwabla Kwamigah, Council of State representative for the Volta Region, and Patricia Awoonor as directors of Sesi-Edem Company Limited.
While holding public advisory roles does not imply wrongdoing, governance analysts note that proximity to public office increases expectations of transparency—particularly in disputes involving strategic export commodities such as gold. This has contributed to heightened public scrutiny.
What Resolution Will Likely Require
Trade specialists indicate that resolution will depend on:
–Matching export permits with verified shipment quantities
–Reconciling customs declarations across jurisdictions
–Aligning origin and destination assay certificates
–Reconciling payment records against confirmed fine gold deliveries
These are standard procedures in international commodity dispute resolution.
Implications for Ghana’s Gold Sector
Gold exports are critical to Ghana’s:
–Foreign exchange earnings
–Fiscal stability
–International trade credibility
Industry observers caution that unresolved assay and supply disputes, if not transparently addressed, could undermine investor confidence.
Conclusion: What the Facts Currently Show
Available documentation indicates:
-GHS 57.7 million paid for a 50kg gold supply
-29.2kg confirmed delivered by accredited refinery assay
-30.8kg claimed by the supplier without independent verification
–Approximately 19.2kg outstanding as of July 2025
–Unresolved financial exposure exceeding GHS 22 million based on internal supplier valuation
Until independent verification and full reconciliation are completed, the matter remains a technical and commercial dispute. As with most international commodity cases, documentation, assay verification, and financial reconciliation—not media narratives—will ultimately determine the outcome.