Samuel Atta Akyea, lead counsel for Bernard Antwi Boasiako, also known as Chairman Wontumi, has declared his client's 20-year prison sentence for unlawful mining concession assignment is without legal or evidentiary foundation. Mr. Atta Akyea, representing the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), confirmed the defense team will challenge the ruling through Ghana's appellate courts.
Speaking on JoyFM's NewsNight on Tuesday, July 21, Mr. Atta Akyea stated that a thorough review of the prosecution's case revealed significant gaps. He argued these deficiencies could not justify the judgment handed down against Chairman Wontumi. The lawyer maintained that the prosecution failed to produce direct evidence showing that Chairman Wontumi unlawfully assigned his mining concession or received any financial benefit from the alleged transaction.
This case highlights ongoing scrutiny of mining activities in Ghana, particularly concerning illegal small-scale mining, known as 'galamsey'. The government has intensified efforts to combat galamsey due to its devastating environmental impact and economic consequences. High-profile convictions like Chairman Wontumi's send a strong signal about the state's commitment to enforcing mining regulations, even against politically connected individuals. This legal battle could set a precedent for future cases involving alleged breaches of mining laws.
Mr. Atta Akyea emphasized the prosecution witnesses never testified that the NPP chairman transferred mineral rights to them. He also noted they never claimed Chairman Wontumi demanded payment in exchange for access to the concession. "I can tell you something which is very consequential. Looking at the poverty of the prosecution's case, I do not see how this judgement is founded on law and evidence," he stated.
The lawyer explained that the evidence presented in court only showed individuals were permitted to undertake land reclamation works. They were also allowed to establish coconut plantations after the reclamation. He questioned the logic of attributing the criminal activities of these individuals to Chairman Wontumi if they engaged in illegal mining. "If the two individuals who became the prosecution's witnesses went on illegal mining, how do you attribute their criminal activities to Chairman Wontumi?" he asked.
Mr. Atta Akyea, a former Akim Abuakwa South Member of Parliament, also criticized the prosecution's reliance on witnesses. He argued these witnesses should themselves have faced criminal charges. "For the life of me, I can't believe how those who were supposed to be charged were instead called to testify against the man who gave them the opportunity to reclaim the land," he asserted.
He further rejected suggestions that allowing others to work on a mining concession amounts to transferring ownership or mineral rights. He drew an analogy: "When you have a farm, and you employ people to harvest cassava or work on it, does that mean you have assigned ownership of the farm to them? The absurdity is monstrous." He insisted the conviction was based largely on circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof of any unlawful transfer of mining rights.
The lawyer also criticized the trial court for dismissing constitutional issues raised by the defense. He described the decision as "an aberration of justice." "I raised constitutional issues for the consideration of the judge, but they were ignored. We will test these matters before the appellate courts," he confirmed. The legal team will appeal the judgment at the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, proceed to the Supreme Court. This protracted legal battle will be closely watched by political observers and the mining sector, as its outcome could influence perceptions of justice and accountability in Ghana's resource management.