Evidence presented in the High Court has not shown Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, also known as Chairman Wontumi, assigned mining rights. There is also no proof he authorized illegal mining. The Republic, in its case against him and Akonta Mining Limited, has struggled to produce solid evidence. This is according to proceedings at the Criminal Court 4 Division.
The core of the prosecution’s allegations revolves around illegal mining activities. However, the court has not seen any written assignment agreements. There is also no record of ministerial approval for any transfer of mining rights. Furthermore, no payment trails link Chairman Wontumi to alleged proceeds from illegal mining. The prosecution has failed to show Akonta Mining had operational authorization for illegal mining or that Chairman Wontumi directed, financed, or supervised such activities. Crucially, no gold proceeds have been traced to him. His defense points to expert testimony distinguishing mining rights assignment from reclamation support services.
Ghana’s mining sector is governed by the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703). This law requires formal written documentation for assigning mineral rights. Strict regulatory procedures and ministerial approval are also necessary. The case highlights a gap between public accusations and legal requirements for proof. This situation comes at a time when Ghana is actively seeking to reform its mining sector and combat illegal mining, known locally as 'galamsey'. The country has faced significant environmental damage due to these activities. Weaknesses in enforcement and prosecution, as suggested by this case, can undermine broader efforts to ensure sustainable resource management and attract responsible investment.
Under Ghanaian law, criminal convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense has emphasized this standard. They note the absence of crucial documentary evidence expected in such significant criminal prosecutions. Expert testimony has clarified that verbal interactions do not constitute lawful assignment of mineral rights. A defense witness stated that any assignment not in a deed, and expressly approved by the Minister of Mines, is not recognized by Ghanaian law. This clarity on legal requirements is central to the defense’s argument.
The implications of the court’s eventual ruling could be significant. A failure by the prosecution to prove its case might set a precedent. It could underscore the importance of rigorous evidence gathering in future prosecutions. This may also influence investor confidence in the predictability of Ghana's legal framework for mining. Decision-makers and markets will watch for how this case impacts the enforcement of mining regulations. The burden of proof rests with the Republic. Serious and reasonable doubt is said to exist based on current evidence.