Wontumi Appeals Twenty-Year Sentence In Landmark Case
Wontumi Appeals Conviction, Challenges Verdict
Chairman Wontumi, has taken his legal battle to the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn his conviction and sentence on grounds that the verdict misapplied mining laws.
The legal team for Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has filed a formal appeal against his conviction and sentence, asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the High Court’s judgment on multiple legal and evidential grounds. The Notice of Appeal, filed on Tuesday July 28, by lead counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, challenges both the conviction and the punishment imposed by the High Court (Criminal Division) in Accra. The appeal was lodged on behalf of Wontumi, the first accused person, and Akonta Mining Company Limited, the third accused person and appellant.
Court documents indicate that the appellants are seeking a complete reversal of the High Court’s decision delivered on July 20, 2026, arguing that the judgment was fundamentally flawed in both law and fact. Among the principal grounds of appeal is the contention that the convictions were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented during the trial. The defence maintains that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence relied upon by the trial court was insufficient to sustain the verdict.
The appellants also argue that the trial judge misconstrued key provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended, insisting that a proper interpretation of the legislation supports their innocence rather than their conviction. Another significant issue raised in the appeal concerns constitutional interpretation. The defence contends that the trial court exceeded its authority by effectively determining constitutional questions that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, particularly in relation to the interpretation of provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act and the 1992 Constitution.
The appeal further challenges the credibility and reliability of a key prosecution witness, identified as PW2. According to the defence, the witness admitted to engaging in illegal mining activities and participating in the alleged enterprise, making his testimony unreliable as a basis for securing convictions. Counsel also argues that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution did not point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused persons. Instead, the appeal maintains that there were reasonable alternative explanations that the trial court failed to adequately consider.
Another central argument is that the prosecution did not establish the requisite criminal intent, or mens rea, necessary to prove the offences for which the appellants were convicted. The appeal additionally contests the legal basis upon which the corporate veil of Akonta Mining Company Limited was lifted, arguing that holding the company criminally liable in the manner adopted by the trial court was unsupported by law.
The appellants further maintain that exculpatory evidence favourable to the defence was either disregarded or not accorded sufficient weight during the trial, thereby affecting the fairness of the proceedings and the outcome of the case. In addition to seeking to quash the convictions, the appeal challenges the sentences imposed by the High Court, describing them as excessive and disproportionately severe under the circumstances. Court records show that the appellants have outlined more than 20 grounds of appeal, all aimed at persuading the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s judgment and grant the reliefs sought.
The filing marks the beginning of the appellate process, during which the Court of Appeal will examine whether errors of law or fact occurred during the trial that warrant the reversal or variation of the convictions and sentences. Until the appeal is heard and determined, the High Court’s judgment remains subject to the outcome of the appellate proceedings.
By: Joyce Owusu
