The High Court in Accra has sentenced the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, widely known as Chairman Wontumi, to 20 years’ imprisonment on each of two counts after finding him guilty in the Akonta Mining illegal mining case. The prison terms will run concurrently.
The court also imposed a fine of 10,000 penalty units for each offence against Wontumi, while Akonta Mining Limited was ordered to pay 15,000 penalty units for each of the two counts on which it was convicted.
Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay convicted Wontumi on Counts One and Four and found Akonta Mining Limited guilty on Counts Three and Six, ruling that prosecutors had proven the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Before delivering judgment, the court dismissed a last-minute application filed by the defence on July 16, 2026, which sought to postpone the ruling and refer constitutional issues to the Supreme Court.
The defence argued that questions raised in its written submissions required constitutional interpretation. However, Justice Kocuvie-Tay ruled that Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), was clear and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
Referring to the precedent in R v. Mainkankan, the judge stated that constitutional referrals are only appropriate where genuine uncertainty exists. She added that the defence’s argument reflected disagreement with Parliament’s legislative choices rather than a constitutional issue requiring interpretation.
Regarding the charges of unlawfully assigning mineral rights without approval from the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources, the court held that the prosecution successfully established all the required elements.
It found that Akonta Mining possessed the mineral rights, allowed those rights to be exercised by another party, and did so without obtaining the mandatory ministerial approval.
Evidence presented by the Minerals Commission detailed the approval process, while both accused acknowledged that no ministerial consent had been secured. According to the court, this fact was never disputed during the trial.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay also rejected the defence’s claim that Henry Okum had only been engaged to reclaim degraded sections of the concession. The judge concluded that the available evidence showed he had been permitted to carry out mining activities.
The court relied on Okum’s testimony that he was a small-scale miner who had not received funding for reclamation but instead was authorised to mine untouched sections of the concession to finance restoration work. Since this evidence was not challenged during cross-examination, the court accepted it.
The judge further described Wontumi’s explanation that Okum would recover his investment through future coconut farming as an afterthought, ruling that granting another individual the right to exploit Akonta Mining’s concession amounted to an unlawful transfer of mineral rights.
Although companies are generally recognised as separate legal entities from their shareholders, the court found sufficient grounds to lift Akonta Mining’s corporate veil. Justice Kocuvie-Tay ruled that the company lacked an effective board of directors and that Wontumi exercised direct control over its mining operations.
As a result, the court held him personally responsible for offences committed through the company, treating him as the effective controller of the mining lease.
On the charges of facilitating unlawful mining, the court concluded that Wontumi and Akonta Mining deliberately enabled Henry Okum to conduct mining activities on the concession without the approvals required under the Minerals and Mining Act.
The judgment also cited evidence that Wontumi introduced Okum to an individual who helped him obtain an excavator for the mining operations, strengthening the prosecution’s case that the arrangement went beyond land reclamation.
The court dismissed several additional arguments raised by the defence, including claims that the phrase “otherwise deal with” in the Minerals and Mining Act should be interpreted narrowly alongside terms such as “assign,” “transfer,” and “mortgage.”
It also ruled that the absence of written agreements did not invalidate the prosecution’s case, noting that informal arrangements could still constitute criminal offences.
Ultimately, the High Court convicted Bernard Antwi Boasiako on Count One for assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval and Count Four for purposefully facilitating unlawful mining.
Akonta Mining Limited was convicted on Count Three for assigning mineral rights without approval and Count Six for facilitating unlawful mining activities.
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 introduced tougher penalties for illegal mining-related offences.