The Minority Caucus in Parliament has sharply criticized the 20-year prison sentence imposed on Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, widely known as Chairman Wontumi, the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP). This verdict, which also affects his firm Akonta Mining Limited, stems from convictions on two counts under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703). The Minority describes the High Court ruling by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay as a significant miscarriage of justice, raising serious constitutional objections.
The core of the Minority's grievance centers on alleged procedural irregularities during the trial. A primary concern is the court's decision to deliver judgment and sentence Wontumi in the absence of his lead counsel. The lawyer had formally informed the court of a prior professional commitment outside the jurisdiction. The caucus argues that proceeding without the accused's chosen legal representation directly violates Article 19(2)(g) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a lawyer of one's choice.
This legal challenge fits into a broader narrative of judicial scrutiny and political tensions in Ghana. The Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, has been central to the government's efforts to combat illegal mining, known as 'galamsey,' a persistent issue with significant environmental and economic consequences. High-profile cases like Wontumi's often become flashpoints, highlighting the delicate balance between law enforcement, constitutional rights, and political affiliations. The outcome of such cases can influence public perception of judicial independence and the fairness of the legal system.
Minority Leader Osahen Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, in a press statement issued on Monday, 20 July 2026, emphasized the constitutional concerns. He drew parallels to the 2008 conviction of Tsatsu Tsikata, which the Court of Appeal overturned on 30 November 2016, citing a miscarriage of justice due to procedural flaws. Afenyo-Markin stated, "If the right to counsel of choice mattered in 2003, it matters in 2026, and it matters exactly as much when the accused sits on the other side of the political aisle."
The Minority further faulted Justice Kocuvie-Tay for rejecting the defense team's application to refer constitutional interpretation questions regarding Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703 to the Supreme Court under Article 130. They cited the precedent set in Republic v. The High Court, General Jurisdiction 6, Accra; Ex Parte Dr. Zanetor A. Rawlings (2016), asserting that a lower court errs by deciding a statutory provision is "clear and unambiguous" to avoid Supreme Court referral. The caucus also questioned the decision to lift Akonta Mining Limited's corporate veil, holding Wontumi personally liable, arguing this exceptional remedy requires appellate scrutiny.
Beyond procedural issues, the Minority accused state prosecutors of applying a double standard based on political affiliation in the fight against illegal mining. They highlighted the lack of progress in investigations ordered on 15 July 2025, by Attorney-General Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, into alleged galamsey activities involving National Organiser Joseph Yamin and National Vice Chairman Yakubu Abanga. The caucus contrasted these delays with the swift trial and heavy custodial sentence handed to Wontumi, an opposition regional chairman. They also cited an unprosecuted takeover of a licensed concession at Apinto involving foreign nationals, further alleging selective justice.
The implications of this challenge are significant for Ghana's legal and political landscape. The Minority Caucus has vowed to test the High Court's decision at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. This will likely lead to prolonged legal battles, potentially setting new precedents regarding constitutional rights in criminal proceedings and the interpretation of mining laws. The case will be closely watched by legal experts, political observers, and the public, as it could influence future prosecutions related to illegal mining and perceptions of fairness within the justice system. The Office of the Attorney-General will face increased pressure to demonstrate transparency in its enforcement record across the political spectrum.