Ghana's Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has firmly rejected assertions that the prosecution and subsequent conviction of Bernard Antwi Boasiako, also known as Chairman Wontumi, were legally flawed. Dr Srem-Sai stated that the defence counsel fundamentally misunderstood the law governing the charges against the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman. This clarification addresses significant criticism from the Minority in Parliament and the main opposition party regarding the High Court's judgment.
Dr Srem-Sai explained that the core of the defence's misunderstanding lay in mischaracterising the specific offences. He highlighted that the charge against Wontumi was not about assigning a mining concession to another person. Instead, the offence related to allowing another party to deal with the concession without obtaining the prior written approval of the Minister, which directly contravenes the Minerals and Mining Act. The Deputy Attorney-General emphasised that the particulars of the offence did not mention an assignment, making the defence's argument about the absence of a written assignment irrelevant to the actual charge.
This legal debate unfolds against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny on Ghana's mining sector, particularly concerning illegal mining activities, locally known as 'galamsey'. The government has intensified efforts to combat these illicit operations, which have caused significant environmental degradation and economic losses. High-profile convictions like Wontumi's are seen by some as a demonstration of the government's commitment to enforcing mining laws, while others view them through a political lens, alleging selective justice.
Speaking on Joy FM's News Night on Tuesday, July 21, Dr Srem-Sai explicitly stated, "There is some fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the defence counsel." He further elaborated that the law requires any arrangement concerning a mining concession to receive the Minister's written approval. "If the law says you should do it in writing and you refuse to do it in writing, that is the first breach of the law," he added, underscoring the legal basis for the prosecution.
The implications of this legal clarification are significant for Ghana's judicial system and its fight against illegal mining. It reinforces the principle that legal proceedings must adhere strictly to the letter of the law, regardless of political affiliations. Future cases involving breaches of the Minerals and Mining Act will likely see prosecutors and judges referencing this interpretation, potentially leading to more stringent enforcement. Decision-makers in the mining sector and legal professionals will closely watch how this precedent influences subsequent judgments and policy adjustments.
Dr Srem-Sai also dismissed the Minority's assertion that the trial judge erred by not referring constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. He cited established legal principles, explaining that a judge is not obligated to refer every issue labelled as constitutional by a litigant. "The authorities are clear that the fact that one party to a case claims there is a constitutional issue does not mean that the judge should refer it to the Supreme Court," he affirmed. This stance highlights the judiciary's autonomy in determining the relevance of constitutional referrals, ensuring that such claims do not unduly delay or derail trials.
The conviction of Chairman Wontumi, and the subsequent legal arguments, underscore the complexities of enforcing environmental and economic regulations in Ghana. It also reflects the ongoing tension between political narratives and legal interpretations within the country's governance framework. The public and various stakeholders will continue to monitor the legal aftermath, including any potential appeals, as these outcomes could shape future enforcement actions and public confidence in the judicial system.