The High Court in Accra has sentenced Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, to 20 years in prison for each of the two counts on which he was convicted in the Akonta Mining illegal mining case.
The sentences are to run concurrently.
In addition, the court fined Wontumi 10,000 penalty units for each count.
Akonta Mining Limited, which was also convicted on two counts, was fined 15,000 penalty units for each count.
Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay found Wontumi guilty on Counts One and Four, while Akonta Mining Limited was convicted on Counts Three and Six, after ruling that the prosecution had proven all the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
The convictions followed the court’s dismissal of a last-minute application by the defence seeking to delay judgment and refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court.
The application, filed on July 16, 2026, argued that constitutional issues raised in the defence’s written address required interpretation by the apex court.
However, Justice Kocuvie-Tay held that Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) was clear and unambiguous and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
Citing the decision in R v. Mainkankan, the judge said constitutional referrals were only necessary where genuine ambiguity existed.
“The issue raised by counsel is that Parliament ought to have legislated differently. That is not a matter for constitutional interpretation,” the court held.
Assignment of mineral rights
On Counts One and Three, relating to the unlawful assignment of mineral rights without approval from the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources, the court held that the prosecution had established all the required elements of the offence.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay said the prosecution was required to prove that Akonta Mining held the mineral rights, that those rights were transferred, assigned or otherwise dealt with, and that the transaction occurred without ministerial approval.
The court found that the absence of ministerial approval was not disputed.
Evidence from the Minerals Commission outlined the approval process, while the accused persons admitted that no such approval had been obtained.
“The allegation was never contested. The accused admitted that no ministerial approval was received,” the judge said.
The court also rejected the defence’s claim that Henry Okum was only permitted to reclaim degraded portions of the concession and was not involved in mining.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay said the circumstances surrounding the arrangement showed that mining activities were taking place.
The judge relied on Okum’s testimony that he was a small-scale miner and had not received funds to undertake reclamation. Instead, he said he was allowed to mine unworked portions of the concession and use proceeds from the activity to finance reclamation.
The court noted that this evidence was not challenged during cross-examination.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay described Wontumi’s explanation that Okum would recover his investment through future coconut farming as “an afterthought.”
The court therefore held that allowing another person to exercise Akonta Mining’s exclusive mining rights amounted to an unlawful dealing in mineral rights.
Corporate veil lifted
Although acknowledging that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, the court held that the circumstances of the case justified lifting Akonta Mining’s corporate veil.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay found that the company did not operate through a functional board of directors and that Wontumi exercised effective control over its mining activities.
The court consequently treated him as the de facto controller of the mining lease and held him personally liable for offences committed through the company.
Facilitating unlawful mining
On Counts Four and Six, the court found Wontumi and Akonta Mining guilty of purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay held that the accused allowed Henry Okum to access the concession and undertake mining operations without the approvals required under the Minerals and Mining Act.
The court also found evidence of deliberate facilitation, citing testimony that Wontumi introduced Okum to a person who assisted him in acquiring an excavator for the operations.
Although the defence argued that the arrangement was solely for reclamation, the court held that the evidence established that permission extended to mining activities.
Defence arguments rejected
The High Court dismissed several arguments raised by the defence, including the claim that the phrase “otherwise deal with” in the Minerals and Mining Act should be narrowly interpreted alongside words such as “assign,” “transfer” and “mortgage.”
The court also rejected the argument that the absence of written agreements weakened the prosecution’s case, holding that informal arrangements could still attract criminal liability.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay further ruled that dissatisfaction with Parliament’s choice of legislation 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 — and Count Four — purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
- Akonta Mining Limited on Count Three — assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval — and Count Six — purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
The convictions were secured under provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Act 995), which increased penalties for illegal mining-related offences.
Source: Citinews
About the Author
