Bernard Antwi Boasiako aka Wontumi
The convicted Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has launched an appeal against his conviction and 20 years’ imprisonment for permitting others to mine on his company’s concession at Samreboi in the Western Region without ministerial approval.
A notice of appeal filed by his lawyers at the Court of Appeal by is legal team contend that the conviction is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.
Conviction
Chairman Wontumi was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment in hard labour on July 20, 2026, by a High Court presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, after finding him guilty of acts contravening the Minerals and Mining Act of Ghana.
He was also fined GH¢120,000 for the offence while his company, Akonta Mining Limited, was fined GH¢180,000 for its role in unlawfully assigning the concession to a third party.
Chairman Wontumi was charged with one count of assignment of mineral rights without approval, and another count of purposely facilitating an unlicensed mining operation, contrary to Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) as amended by Section 3 of the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995).
Justice Kocuvie-Tay noted in her judgment that the agreement between Chairman Wontumi and Henry Okum, the prosecution’s witness who was arrested mining on the concession, was not documented, hence relied on circumstantial evidence to hold that Chairman Wontumi permitted Okum to illegally mine on the concession and use the proceeds to undertake the reclamation.
She said no reasonable evidence existed to rival the conclusion that Chairman Wontumi permitted Henry Okum to reclaim the land with proceeds Okum generated from the illegal mining activities on Akonta Mining’s concession.
The court said evidence in the trial point to the fact that Chairman Wontumi alone was the sole controlling mind and hand of Akonta Mining Limited, therefore making him the de facto mineral rights holder in the concession in question.
Appeal Notice
Chairman Wontumi’s lawyers have filed a notice of appeal against the decision, the conviction and sentencing, arguing that the evidence led by the prosecution do not support the same.
They contend that the trial judge erred in holding that Akonta Mining Limited’s mere permission to Okum to reclaim the Samreboi concession area on its behalf requires ministerial approval within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) as amended.
“Equating a mere permission to enter and undertake reclamation works with a transfer, assignment, mortgage, encumbrance or other disposition of a mineral right is a wrong interpretation of Section 14(1) of Act 703 as amended,” the notice of appeal argues.
It further contends that the trial judge erred in law by concluding that the circumstantial evidence on record irresistibly led to one conclusion that Chairman Wontumi permitted Okum to undertake a mining operation on the concession of Akonta Mining Limited.
“Where there are no inculpatory facts incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt, circumstantial evidence cannot be applied.”
Again, the lawyers argue that the trial judge erred in law in holding that Chairman Wontumi was the true and de facto mineral rights holder in the Samreboi concession when exhibits before the court unequivocally established that the mineral rights belonged exclusively to the company.
They further contend that the judge erred in law by lifting the corporate veil of Akonta Mining without any legal basis, arguing that “in a criminal case where a Court makes a finding of fact that a director of a company is one and the same as the Company, the proof must be beyond reasonable doubt.”
It is also their contention that the judge failed to fairly and impartially evaluate the defence evidence when she rejected the defence on the basis of perceived improbabilities instead of weighing the evidence against the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
This, they contend, occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice on Chairman Wontumi and his company.
They add that the sentences on the counts against the convicts were inordinately harsh and excessive based on the principles of law undergirding sentencing as well as the evidence adduced.
The lawyers are therefore asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the trial court and acquit and discharge Chairman Wontumi and his company on all charges.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak