The High Court in Accra has sentenced 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 Counts One and Four, while Akonta Mining Limited was convicted on Counts Three and Six, after ruling that the prosecution had proven all the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
The Charges Explained
What Did Chairman Wontumi Do Wrong?
The convictions stem from two key offences under Ghana’s Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Act 995) – which significantly increased penalties for illegal mining-related offences.
| Count | Defendant | Offence |
|---|---|---|
| Count One | Chairman Wontumi | Assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval |
| Count Three | Akonta Mining Limited | Assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval |
| Count Four | Chairman Wontumi | Purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities |
| Count Six | Akonta Mining Limited | Purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities |
Why the Corporate Veil Was Lifted
One of the most significant legal findings in this case was the court’s decision to lift Akonta Mining’s corporate veil – a move that allowed the court to hold Wontumi personally liable for offences committed through the company.
Although the law generally recognizes a company as a separate legal entity from its shareholders, Justice Kocuvie-Tay found that Akonta Mining did not operate through a functional board of directors. Instead, Wontumi exercised effective control over its mining activities.
The court consequently treated him as the de facto controller of the mining lease and held him personally liable.
“The company did not operate through a functional board of directors. Wontumi exercised effective control over its mining activities.”
— Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay
What the Court Said About Ministerial Approval
On Counts One and Three, the court held that the prosecution had established all the required elements of the offence. The prosecution was required to prove:
1. That Akonta Mining held the mineral rights
2. That those rights were transferred, assigned, or otherwise dealt with
3. That the transaction occurred without ministerial approval
The court found that the absence of ministerial approval was not disputed.
“The allegation was never contested. The accused admitted that no ministerial approval was received.”
— Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay
The ‘Reclamation’ Defense
The defence claimed that Henry Okum was only permitted to reclaim degraded portions of the concession and was not involved in mining. However, the court rejected this argument.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay noted that Okum testified he was a small-scale miner and had not received funds for reclamation.
Instead, he was allowed to mine unworked portions of the concession and use proceeds to finance reclamation.
“Wontumi’s explanation that Okum would recover his investment through future coconut farming was an afterthought.”
— Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay
Defence Arguments Rejected
The court dismissed several arguments raised by the defence, including:
| Defence Argument | Court’s Ruling |
|---|---|
| The phrase “otherwise deal with” should be narrowly interpreted | Rejected – the court held that informal arrangements can still attract criminal liability |
| Absence of written agreements weakened the prosecution’s case | Rejected – formal contracts are not required for criminal liability |
| Constitutional questions should be referred to the Supreme Court | Rejected – Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703 is clear and unambiguous |
The Constitutional Referral Application
The defence filed a last-minute application on July 16, 2026, arguing that constitutional issues required interpretation by the Supreme Court. However, Justice Kocuvie-Tay held that Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act was clear and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
Citing the decision in R v. Mainkankan, the judge said 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.”
— Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay
The Convictions at a Glance (convictions)
| Defendant | Count | Offence | Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chairman Wontumi | Count One | Assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval | 20 years + 10,000 penalty units |
| Chairman Wontumi | Count Four | Purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities | 20 years + 10,000 penalty units |
| Akonta Mining Limited | Count Three | Assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval | 15,000 penalty units |
| Akonta Mining Limited | Count Six | Purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities | 15,000 penalty units |
Note: The 20-year sentences run concurrently.
What This Means for Ghana’s Mining Laws (Implecations)
This landmark ruling sends a strong signal about the enforcement of Ghana’s mining laws. The convictions were secured under Act 703 as amended by Act 995, which significantly increased penalties for illegal mining-related offences.
Key Takeaways:
- Corporate veil can be lifted – Company directors can be held personally liable
- Informal arrangements can attract criminal liability – Written contracts are not required
- Ministerial approval is mandatory – No approval = criminal offence
- Constitutional referrals are not a delay tactic – Courts will reject frivolous applications
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why was Chairman Wontumi sentenced to 20 years?
He was convicted on two counts – assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval and purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities. Each count carried a 20-year sentence, which will run concurrently.
What is the “corporate veil” and why was it lifted?
The corporate veil is the legal principle that treats a company as separate from its shareholders. It was lifted because Akonta Mining did not have a functional board, and Wontumi personally controlled its mining activities.
What did the court say about ministerial approval?
The court found that Wontumi and Akonta Mining admitted they did not obtain the required ministerial approval for assigning mineral rights. This was a key factor in their convictions.
Can Chairman Wontumi appeal?
Yes. His legal team is expected to explore an appeal against the convictions and sentences.
What does this mean for illegal mining in Ghana?
This ruling signals that courts are willing to impose severe penalties – including prison time – on individuals and companies involved in illegal mining, even those in positions of political influence.
This case is a landmark moment in Ghana’s fight against illegal mining. The court’s willingness to impose a 20-year prison sentence on a prominent political figure – and to lift the corporate veil to hold him personally liable – sends an unmistakable message.
Illegal mining will not be tolerated. Not for small-scale miners. Not for large companies. And not for political figures with influence.
Source: Citinewsroom.com – Wontumi jailed 20 years for illegal mining
For more news and updates, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.
