Adoa News Adoa News
The High Court in Accra has sentenced the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, to 20 years’ imprisonment on each of the two counts for which he was convicted in the Akonta Mining illegal mining case.
The sentences will run concurrently.
In addition to the prison term, the court fined Chairman Wontumi 10,000 penalty units on each count.
Akonta Mining Limited, which was also convicted on two counts, was fined 15,000 penalty units for each offence.
Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay found Chairman Wontumi guilty on Count One, relating to the unlawful assignment of mineral rights without ministerial approval, and Count Four, for purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities. Akonta Mining Limited was convicted on Counts Three and Six on similar charges.
The court ruled that the prosecution had proved all the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Court dismisses constitutional referral application
The convictions followed the dismissal of a last-minute application by the defence seeking to postpone judgment and refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court.
The application, filed on July 16, 2026, argued that issues raised in the defence’s written address required constitutional interpretation.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay rejected the application, holding that Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), was clear and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
Quoting the decision in R v. Mainkankan, the judge stated that constitutional referrals are only necessary where there is genuine ambiguity.
“The issue raised by counsel is that Parliament ought to have legislated differently. That is not a matter for constitutional interpretation,” the court held.
Unlawful assignment of mineral rights established
On the charges relating to the unlawful assignment of mineral rights, the court held that the prosecution had established that Akonta Mining held the mining lease, allowed another person to exercise those rights, and did so without the approval of the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay noted that the absence of ministerial approval was never disputed during the trial.
Evidence from the Minerals Commission outlined the required approval process, while the accused admitted that no approval had been obtained.
“The allegation was never contested. The accused admitted that no ministerial approval was received,” the judge stated.
The court also rejected the defence’s argument that prosecution witness Henry Okum had only been authorised to undertake land reclamation and coconut plantation activities.
Instead, the judge accepted Mr Okum’s testimony that he was allowed to mine portions of the concession and use proceeds from the mining to finance reclamation works.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay described Chairman Wontumi’s explanation that Mr Okum would recover his investment through future coconut farming as “an afterthought.”
Corporate veil lifted
Although acknowledging the legal principle that a company is separate from its shareholders, the court held that the circumstances justified lifting Akonta Mining’s corporate veil.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay found that the company did not function through an active board of directors and that Chairman Wontumi exercised effective control over its mining operations.
The court therefore treated him as the de facto controller of the mining lease and held him personally liable for offences committed through the company.
Court finds deliberate facilitation of illegal mining
On the charges of facilitating unlawful mining, the court held that Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining intentionally enabled Henry Okum to undertake mining activities on the concession without the approvals required under the Minerals and Mining Act.
The court cited evidence that Chairman Wontumi introduced Mr Okum to an individual who assisted him in acquiring an excavator for the mining operations.
While the defence maintained that the arrangement was solely for reclamation, the court concluded that the evidence established permission had been granted for mining activities.
Defence arguments rejected
The High Court dismissed several arguments advanced by the defence, including the contention that the phrase “otherwise deal with” in the Minerals and Mining Act should be narrowly interpreted alongside terms such as “assign,” “transfer” and “mortgage.”
The court also rejected the submission that the absence of written agreements weakened the prosecution’s case, ruling that informal arrangements can still amount to criminal conduct.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay further held that disagreement with Parliament’s legislative choices could not form the basis for constitutional interpretation.
Convictions
The court convicted:
- Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi) on:
- Count One – Assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval.
- Count Four – Purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
- Akonta Mining Limited on:
- Count Three – Assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval.
- Count Six – Purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
The convictions were secured under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Act 995), which introduced tougher penalties for illegal mining-related offences.