The Accra High Court has sentenced Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, widely known as Chairman Wontumi, to 20 years’ imprisonment after finding him guilty on two counts in the Akonta Mining illegal mining trial.
The court also imposed a fine of 10,000 penalty units on Wontumi for each count, while Akonta Mining Limited was fined 15,000 penalty units on each of the two counts for which it was convicted.
Delivering judgment, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay held that the prosecution had established the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Wontumi was convicted 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 the corresponding Counts Three and Six.
Before delivering the verdict, the court dismissed an application by the defence seeking to halt the judgment and refer constitutional issues to the Supreme Court. The application argued that provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act required constitutional interpretation.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay, however, ruled that Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act was clear and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
Quoting the decision in R v. Mainkankan, the judge said constitutional references were only warranted 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.
On the charge of unlawfully assigning mineral rights, the court found that Akonta Mining held a valid mining lease but allowed another individual, Henry Okum, to exercise rights under that lease without obtaining the approval of the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources, contrary to the law.
According to the court, evidence from the Minerals Commission outlined the mandatory approval process, while the accused persons themselves acknowledged that no ministerial approval had been obtained.
“The allegation was never contested. The accused admitted that no ministerial approval was received,” Justice Kocuvie-Tay stated.
The court also rejected the defence’s argument that Henry Okum had merely been engaged to reclaim degraded sections of the concession.
Instead, the judge accepted evidence that Okum, a small-scale miner, had been permitted to mine portions of the concession and use proceeds from the mining operations to finance reclamation works. The court noted that this testimony went unchallenged during cross-examination.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay further described Wontumi’s explanation that Okum would eventually recover his investment through coconut farming as “an afterthought.”
In determining Wontumi’s personal liability, the court ruled that although Akonta Mining was a separate legal entity, the circumstances justified lifting the company’s corporate veil.
The judge found that the company lacked a functional board of directors and that Wontumi exercised effective control over its operations, making him the de facto controller of the mining lease.
On the counts relating to facilitating unlawful mining, the court concluded that Wontumi and Akonta Mining deliberately enabled mining activities on the concession without the approvals required under the Minerals and Mining Act.
The judgment cited evidence that Wontumi introduced Henry Okum to an individual who assisted him in acquiring an excavator used in the mining operations, rejecting the defence’s insistence that the arrangement was solely for land reclamation.
The court also dismissed submissions that the absence of written agreements weakened the prosecution’s case, holding that informal arrangements could still constitute criminal conduct under the law.
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 prescribes tougher sanctions for illegal mining-related offences.
