Professor Azar’s blunt assertion—that “those who hid [the] 2022 docket are as complicit as those who mined without a licence”—has redirected public attention from the accused company to the institutions charged with policing Ghana’s gold sector. The comment, published by GhanaWeb in its coverage of developments in the Akonta Mining case, frames the dispute as not only about one firm’s compliance but about whether elements of the criminal-justice system preserved or suppressed evidence.

The Akonta case, which centers on allegations that the company operated without the necessary licences and in contravention of environmental safeguards, has been pending in criminal and administrative processes for more than two years. According to the account that prompted Professor Azar’s intervention, a docket created in 2022 that documented investigative steps and evidence has not been made available to prosecutors, defence lawyers, or the public, prompting questions about chain-of-custody and prosecutorial transparency.

Legal scholars and governance experts say the allegation of a concealed docket, if substantiated, would carry severe institutional implications. “When investigative files are withheld, the problem is not merely procedural error; it risks subverting the evidentiary basis for prosecution and for regulatory enforcement,” said one legal analyst who reviewed the publicly reported claims. The analyst stressed that proving concealment could prompt internal disciplinary measures and potentially criminal investigations for obstruction or dereliction of duty.

Government agencies central to mining oversight—the Ghana Police Service, the Minerals Commission and the Attorney-General’s office—have formal responsibilities for gathering, preserving and presenting evidence in environmental and mining offences. Public records show that Ghana has repeatedly amended its enforcement architecture in recent years to address illegal mining, known locally as galamsey, and to strengthen interagency coordination. Still, episodes of contested evidence and delayed prosecutions have fuelled public scepticism about whether enforcement is even-handed.

Professor Azar’s comments have prompted renewed calls from civil-society actors for an independent review of the Akonta matter and for reforms to docket management. Advocates argue that audited, digitised records and clearer chains of custody would reduce opportunities for both corruption and inadvertent mishandling. They also warn that if enforcement lapses are perceived to favour well-connected operators, voter disaffection and local unrest could rise in mining communities dependent on both legal jobs and the environmental services endangered by unregulated extraction.

Representatives for the Minerals Commission and the Ghana Police Service did not provide immediate responses to requests for comment on the allegation that the 2022 docket was hidden. The office of the Attorney-General has previously defended prosecutors’ discretion in managing sensitive files, but has also said it supports inquiries into procedural lapses when credible evidence emerges.

As the Akonta case proceeds, the central question emerging from Professor Azar’s intervention is less about a single company’s conduct and more about whether state institutions are equipped and willing to produce a transparent record of enforcement. The outcome may determine not only legal accountability for the parties named in the indictment but also public confidence in the rule of law that underpins Ghana’s governance of its most valuable natural resource.