Wontumi Jailed 20 Years Over Akonta Mining Galamsey Case; Court Orders Forfeiture of Excavators, Gold, Firearms
Analysis based on “The Wontumi Judgment Without Tears” by Prof. Kwaku Azar (Kweku Azar)
The High Court has convicted and sentenced the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, to 20 years imprisonment with hard labour over illegal mining offences linked to Akonta Mining Company Limited.
The judgment, delivered by the High Court, also convicted Akonta Mining Company Ltd, ordered heavy fines, and directed the forfeiture to the State of all equipment and items seized from its mining concession.
What The Case Was About
According to a legal breakdown of the judgment by US-based Ghanaian law professor, Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kweku Azar, the central question before the court was whether Wontumi and Akonta Mining unlawfully allowed another person to use Akonta Mining’s mining concession without the Minister’s approval and, in doing so, deliberately facilitated unlawful mining.
The prosecution argued that they did. The defence argued that Wontumi never authorized mining, but only allowed one Henry Okum to reclaim degraded land by planting coconut trees, and that if Okum mined illegally, he acted entirely on his own.
Three persons were charged in the case:
A1: Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Wontumi)
A2: Kwame Antwi – who never appeared before the court and remains at large, hence no determination was made on his guilt
A3: Akonta Mining Company Ltd.
The Two Main Offences
Prof. Azar explains that although six counts were brought, they were based on only two offences:
1. Allowing another person to use a mining concession without the Minister’s approval. The law provides that because mining rights are granted by the State, they cannot be transferred, shared or dealt with without the written approval of the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources.
2. Deliberately facilitating unlawful mining. The law also criminalizes intentionally helping, encouraging or enabling another person to breach mining laws.
How The Court Reached Its Decision
The prosecution called four key witnesses, including Henry Okum himself, who testified that he approached Wontumi, obtained permission to mine on the concession, and agreed that part of the gold proceeds would finance land reclamation.
Michael Gyadu Ayisi, who supervised operations on site, confirmed mining was taking place.
A witness from the Minerals Commission confirmed that no Ministerial approval was ever obtained and Akonta had never even applied for one. Police officers testified to arresting workers and seizing excavators, firearms, pumping machines, gold, cash and vehicles.
The defence did not deny allowing Henry Okum onto the concession but insisted it was for reclamation only.
The Judge rejected that explanation for four reasons, as captured in the analysis:
1. Henry Okum was already a licensed small-scale miner, making it unlikely he would volunteer to reclaim land for free.
2. Wontumi admitted he gave Okum no money for reclamation, raising the question of how the reclamation was to be financed. Okum’s answer – by mining – was found more believable.
3. Okum’s testimony that he mined with Wontumi’s knowledge remained substantially intact after cross-examination.
4. The Judge regarded Wontumi’s claim that Okum would recover his costs from future mature coconut trees as an afterthought.
The Court also dismissed a pre-trial constitutional challenge by the defence which argued that sections 14(1) and 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act were too vague and violated Article 19(11) of the Constitution.
The Judge held there was no genuine constitutional issue for referral to the Supreme Court.
Why Wontumi Was Personally Liable
On why Wontumi was convicted personally and not just the company, Prof. Azar notes the Judge found that Akonta Mining had no meaningful corporate governance, the second director had been absent for years, and Wontumi alone controlled the company. The Court therefore lifted the corporate veil and treated Wontumi and Akonta Mining as effectively one.
For the second offence, the Judge found that Wontumi deliberately facilitated the illegal mining by helping Okum obtain excavators, introducing him to equipment suppliers and actively assisting the operation.
Verdict and Sentence
The Court convicted:
Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Wontumi):
– Count 1 – Allowing another person to use the concession without Ministerial approval
– Count 4 – Deliberately facilitating unlawful mining
Akonta Mining Company Ltd:
– Count 3 & Count 6 on the same two offences.
Sentence:
– Count 1: 20 years imprisonment with hard labour plus fine of 10,000 penalty units or in default 3 additional years
– Count 4: 20 years imprisonment with hard labour plus fine of 10,000 penalty units or in default 3 additional years
– Prison terms to run concurrently – meaning he will serve 20 years if the conviction stands.
Akonta Mining:
– Fine of 15,000 penalty units on Count 3 and 15,000 penalty units on Count 6, also to run concurrently.
The Court further ordered the forfeiture to the State of everything seized from the concession, including excavators, vehicles, firearms, pumping machines, gold, cash and other equipment, in accordance with the Minerals and Mining Act.
The Judge emphasized that illegal mining causes enormous environmental harm and that deterrence was necessary, though she took into account that the convicted parties were first offenders.
