By MB Times Admin
An investigation into Colin Ikin’s operations in Southern Kaduna reveals a troubling pattern of alleged bribery, forged documents, and community manipulation that mirrors his catastrophic corporate history in Australia—raising urgent questions about Nigeria’s mining oversight.
(Kaduna), In the mineral-rich hills of Southern Kaduna, Northwest Nigeria where lithium and nickel deposits lie beneath Kaninkon land, a familiar story of grand promises and questionable tactics is unfolding. At its center stands Colin Ikin, the Australian mining executive whose corporate failures cost investors nearly $750 million in his homeland, and now, allegedly using cash payments and false governmental connections particularly at the presidential level, to gain control over Nigeria’s valuable mining concessions.
Recent investigations in Jama’a Local Government Area of Kaduna state, where Ikin’s Atlantic Mining Techniques Limited has been attempting to operate, reveals a pattern of activities that community leaders describe as manipulative and potentially fraudulent—allegations that gain credibility when viewed against Ikin’s documented history of corporate catastrophe in Australia.
The Southern Kaduna Operations
Community leaders in Bakin Kogi, Dangoma and surrounding areas paint a troubling picture of Ikin’s methods. According to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity due to fear of intimidation, the Australian executive has been using cash payments to secure local support while making claims about high-level government connections.
“In December last year, he gave out millions of Naira to buy loyalties from people who were willing to sell,” revealed a community leader from Bakin Kogi.
“Some group of elders, a few of them were given 10 million naira in December 2024 by Colin Ikin. That is strange to me because Australians are known to be well-behaved people in business. I have worked with them when I was much younger and I can tell you that they hardly do bribes.”
The source’s concerns extend beyond the alleged payments to Ikin’s intimidation tactics and grandiose claims. “Colin Ikin boasts so much of having connections to the presidency, and with that claim, he is bullying our people into accepting his own terms and surrendering our lands to his company, Atlantic Mining Techniques, for peanuts. Unfortunately, some of our elders, like I said earlier, have fallen for his tricks.”
What particularly alarms community leaders is the absence of standard mining industry practices. “What baffles me most is that Colin isn’t talking about anything like a Community Development Agreement; no clear blueprints for our communities, unlike what we have seen other mining companies do in recent years,” the source explained.
Another community leader from Godogodo expressed deep concern about the state government’s apparent endorsement of Ikin’s operations: “The ongoing romance between the Kaduna state government and Colin Ikin will only lead to chaos in the communities as we do not trust the Australian. His methods are not what we have seen from other mining companies operating in our area.”
Federal Ministry Denies Ikin’s Claims
Despite his alleged boasts about presidential connections and his meetings with state governments, independent investigations reveal that Ikin lacks proper authorization from federal authorities. Kayode Ogunbunmi, a media consultant purportedly linked with the Nigerian Mining Office in Abuja, categorically denied any record of Ikin’s applications in a response to an earlier article accusing the mining office of inadequate oversights.
“The glib reference of Kefas to a Mr Colin Ikin allegedly ‘wanted’ in Zimbabwe and being embraced here is nothing short of a stupor induced hallucination. Truth is, there’s no record of any such Mr Colin’s application or titles in the Federal Ministry of Solid Minerals till date!” Ogunbunmi had stated.
This revelation raises serious questions about how Ikin has been operating in multiple Nigerian states—including documented meetings with officials in Kaduna and Nasarawa—without proper federal licensing. It also raises questions about Ikin’s support network in Nigeria that allows him to perpetuate fraudulent claims. Who are his backers? Who owns Atlantic Mining Techniques Ltd?
The Zimbabwe Connection
Nigeria’s failure to conduct proper due diligence on foreign mining operators becomes more concerning when viewed against experiences elsewhere in Africa. Zimbabwe’s former Chairman of Mines and Energy, Temba Mliswa, has documented similar patterns of exploitation by questionable foreign operators.
“A peculiar case of Colin Ikin, a dodgy mining mogul, has raised my interest. Why does the government seem hell-bent on protecting rogue white business people in this country?” Mliswa questioned, highlighting regulatory capture that has become endemic across African mining sectors.
According to Mliswa’s documentation, Ikin faces serious allegations in Zimbabwe, including criminal activity reported to police, forgery of bank documents, and illegal withdrawal of funds. “This time around, he is alleged to have forged bank documents and went ahead to illegally withdraw US$10,000 from an Afrocash Micro NMB account,” Mliswa noted, describing police cases for fraud and forgery of company documents.
Mliswa’s broader observation resonates with Nigeria’s current situation: “It seems we are intent on becoming a safe haven for foreign criminals, while our own people are constantly faced with the rough edges of the law to the point of being second-class citizens.”
Community Resistance and Formal Complaints
The Nikyob Development Association (NIDA), representing the mining communities in Kaninkon land, has taken formal action against Ikin’s activities. In August 2025, NIDA wrote to the Australian High Commissioner in Abuja, Ms. Leilani Bin-Juda, requesting intervention.
The letter, obtained through this investigation, details a pattern of alleged misconduct: “Mr. Colin Ikin and his company have been involved in forgery, bribery and intimidation of locals who do not support their ‘land grabbing’ scheme. The situation is tense, to say the least.”
NIDA’s complaint highlights the contrast between Ikin’s methods and those of legitimate mining operators: “Other Australian citizens who over the past 10 years, have been carrying out mineral explorations in our lands with licences from the Federal Government of Nigeria… have blessed us with developmental projects such as schools’ renovation, scholarship assistance for students, agricultural support, electrification, water boreholes and other interventions as provided for in our Community Development Agreements.”
The association accused Ikin of attempting to “grab our lands… from the rightful owners and from other licence holders including Basin Mining and Range Mining with the Jupiter Lithium project,” using forged consent documents after the traditional council withdrew its original approval which was obtained with misleading information.
The community leadership has recently written to the Minister and the DG-MCO declaring the community will not give consent to any new company the Ministry or MCO sends to the community seeking for consent. The community wants continuity and consistency in the development of the mineral assets on their traditional land.
“Whatever consent Mr. Ikin has or is parading is a forged document,” NIDA stated, adding that “Atlantic Mining Techniques limited and Colin Ikin are the ones sponsoring” court cases against existing licensed operators.
The Australian Track Record
Ikin’s Nigerian operations become particularly concerning when viewed against his documented corporate history in Australia. As Executive Chairman of Preston Resources, Ikin presided over one of the worst corporate disasters in modern Australian mining history—a spectacular collapse that wiped out nearly $750 million in investor funds.
The Preston Resources saga began when the company, under Ikin’s leadership, acquired the Bulong nickel project for $319 million—money the company didn’t have. Shareholders were effectively held hostage by a $10 million break fee commitment when Preston only had $2 million in the bank.
Despite Ikin’s promotional materials describing Bulong as “an outstanding opportunity” that would make Preston “a significant international nickel producer,” the reality proved catastrophic. The Bulong plant never met production forecasts, cash flow projections failed to materialize, and by 2000, Preston had accumulated losses of $497 million with liabilities exceeding assets by $430 million.
Financial columnist Trevor Sykes, an award-winning journalist with 61 years of experience, documented how investors who had paid $1.50 per share to support the Bulong purchase were “financially disemboweled.” The aftermath saw Preston’s board, including Ikin, proposing to hand over 95% of Bulong to note holders, leaving shareholders with assets worth just $787,000 against liabilities of $5 million.
Regulatory Failures and Systemic Vulnerabilities
The Ikin case exposes critical weaknesses in Nigeria’s mining sector governance. Despite the federal government’s push to diversify from oil revenues and develop the solid minerals sector, the country appears to lack robust systems for vetting foreign operators with questionable backgrounds.
State governments, eager for investment and job creation, appear to be making commitments to operators without proper federal coordination or due diligence. The disconnect between Ikin’s state-level meetings—documented in Kaduna and Nasarawa—and the federal ministry’s denial of any licensing applications reveals dangerous coordination gaps.
This regulatory vacuum creates opportunities for operators like Ikin to exploit Nigeria’s mining potential while potentially exposing communities and investors to the same risks that devastated Preston Resources shareholders in Australia.
A Continental Pattern of Exploitation
Nigeria’s experience with questionable foreign mining operators reflects broader continental challenges. From the Democratic Republic of Congo to Tanzania, African nations have struggled with operators who make grand promises but lack the financial backing or technical competence to deliver sustainable mining operations.
The difference between legitimate operators and questionable ones often becomes apparent in community engagement. Legitimate mining companies typically invest heavily in community development agreements, environmental impact assessments, and stakeholder consultation before beginning operations. They also secure proper licenses and maintain transparent financial backing.
By contrast, operators following the pattern allegedly exhibited by Ikin—cash payments to local leaders, claims about political connections, operations without proper federal licensing, and absence of community development frameworks—represent exactly the kind of extraction-focused approach that leaves host communities worse off than before mining began.
Conclusion: Protecting Nigeria’s Mining Future
As Nigeria seeks to diversify its economy beyond oil dependency, the solid minerals sector offers genuine opportunities for sustainable development. However, realizing this potential requires partnerships with operators who bring not just promises but proven competence, financial backing, and commitment to responsible mining practices.
The Colin Ikin case serves as a powerful reminder that not all foreign investment is beneficial investment. Operators with histories of corporate failure and alleged misconduct in other jurisdictions pose risks not just to investors but to the communities whose lives and lands become entangled with their operations.
Nigerian authorities at federal and state levels must recognize that protecting the country’s mineral wealth requires saying no to questionable operators, regardless of their perceived promotional skills or their claimed political connections. The stakes are too high—and Nigeria’s mining potential too valuable—to risk on operators whose track records suggest they are more likely to leave behind devastation than development.
The communities of Southern Kaduna, like investors who lost fortunes in Preston Resources, deserve better. Nigeria’s mining revolution should create lasting prosperity, not expensive disappointments orchestrated by operators whose previous ventures collapsed in spectacular failure. Learning from other countries’ mistakes isn’t just good governance—it’s essential towards ensuring that Nigeria’s mineral wealth truly serves its people’s interests.