Wontumi Jailed 20 Years for Illegal Mining

The High Court in Accra has sentenced Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, to 20 years in prison for each of the two counts on which he was convicted in the Akonta Mining illegal mining case.
The sentences are to run concurrently.
In addition, the court fined Wontumi 10,000 penalty units for each count.
Akonta Mining Limited, which was also convicted on two counts, was fined 15,000 penalty units for each count.
Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay found Wontumi guilty on Count One — assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval — and Count Four — purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities. Akonta Mining Limited was convicted on Count Three — assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval — and Count Six — purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities, after ruling that the prosecution had proven all the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
The convictions followed the court’s dismissal of a last-minute application by the defence seeking to delay judgment and refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court.
The application, filed on July 16, 2026, argued that constitutional issues raised in the defence’s written address required interpretation by the apex court. However, Justice Kocuvie-Tay held that Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), was clear and unambiguous and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
Citing the decision in R v. Mainkankan, the judge held that constitutional referrals were only necessary where genuine ambiguity existed.
“The issue raised by counsel is that Parliament ought to have legislated differently. That is not a matter for constitutional interpretation,” the court ruled.
Assignment of mineral rights
On Counts One and Three, relating to the unlawful assignment of mineral rights without ministerial approval, the court held that the prosecution had established all the required elements of the offence.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay said the prosecution proved that Akonta Mining held the mineral rights, transferred or otherwise dealt with those rights, and did so without the approval of the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources.
The court noted that the absence of ministerial approval was never disputed. Evidence from the Minerals Commission outlined the approval process, while the accused admitted that no approval had been obtained.
“The allegation was never contested. The accused admitted that no ministerial approval was received,” the judge observed.
The court also rejected the defence’s argument that Henry Okum had merely been contracted to reclaim degraded portions of the concession.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay accepted evidence that Okum, a licensed small-scale miner, was permitted to mine portions of the concession and use the proceeds to finance reclamation works. His testimony was not challenged during cross-examination.
The judge described Wontumi’s explanation that Okum would recover his investment through future coconut farming as “an afterthought” and held that allowing another person to exercise Akonta Mining’s exclusive mining rights amounted to an unlawful dealing in mineral rights.
Corporate veil lifted
Although acknowledging that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, the court held that the circumstances justified lifting Akonta Mining’s corporate veil.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay found that the company did not operate through a functional board of directors and that Wontumi exercised effective control over its mining activities. The court therefore held him personally liable as the de facto controller of the mining lease.
Facilitating unlawful mining
On Counts Four and Six, the court found Wontumi and Akonta Mining guilty of purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
The judge ruled that the accused persons allowed Henry Okum to access the concession and undertake mining operations without the approvals required under the Minerals and Mining Act.
The court also relied on evidence that Wontumi introduced Okum to a person who assisted him in acquiring an excavator for the mining operations.
Although the defence maintained that the arrangement was solely for reclamation, the court concluded that the evidence established that permission extended to mining activities.
Defence arguments rejected
The High Court dismissed several arguments advanced by the defence, including the claim that the phrase “otherwise deal with” in the Minerals and Mining Act should be interpreted narrowly alongside terms such as “assign”, “transfer” and “mortgage.”
The court further held that the absence of written agreements did not weaken the prosecution’s case, ruling that informal arrangements could still attract criminal liability.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay also stated that dissatisfaction with Parliament’s legislative choices could not form the basis for constitutional interpretation.
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 stiffer penalties for illegal mining-related offences.