info@businessghana.com
The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, aka Chairman Wontumi, has asked the High Court hearing the case in which he has been accused of permitting two people to mine on his concession without ministerial approval to acquit him.
In an argument to buttress his position on why the Attorney-General (A-G) has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to warrant him and the company being called to open their defence, his lawyer, Andy Appiah-Kubi, urged the court to acquit and discharge Chairman Wontumi.
“Having regard to the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the essential elements of the offences charged, it is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has woefully failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons on all six counts.
“The prosecution's case suffers from fundamental and fatal deficiencies, both in terms of the absence of evidence on essential elements and in terms of the quality and reliability of the evidence adduced,” counsel submitted.
The Attorney-General has charged Chairman Wontumi and his company, the Akonta Mining Company Ltd, with six counts of permitting Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi to mine on the company’s mining concession without obtaining prior approval from the sector minister and facilitating unlicensed mining.
The prosecution called four witnesses to firm up its case against the accused persons.
One of them, Ayisi, testified that he was a miner who partnered Okum to mine on the Akonta Mining Company Limited's concession.
Okum claimed he obtained permission from Chairman Wontumi to conduct mining activities and operated on the concession until their arrest.
During cross-examination, Ayisi acknowledged that he had never met or communicated with Chairman Wontumi and did not possess a mining licence or apply for one.
He also admitted that he lacked a written agreement with the accused persons and had not paid any fee for mining permission.
Counsel for the accused argued that Chairman Wontumi’s decision to permit the two persons to mine on the concession did not constitute an assignment of rights.
“Permission is a licence or authorisation to do something on another person's property without transferring any proprietary rights.
“An assignment, on the other hand, involves the transfer of proprietary rights themselves. The distinction is critical and well-established in law,” counsel submitted, adding that the prosecution's failure to adduce evidence of an assignment was not a minor or technical deficiency, but a fundamental failure to prove an essential element of the offences of permitting the two persons to mine on his client’s concession without ministerial approval.
Mr Appiah-Kubi added that since the prosecution, through its witnesses, failed to provide any evidence of an assignment, the charges of "assignment of mineral rights without approval" could not be sustained.
He said the mere fact that unlicensed mining activities occurred on a concession held by his clients did not in any way establish that his clients purposely facilitated such activities.
“The prosecution must prove positive acts of facilitation and it has failed to do so,” he said.
Again, counsel submitted that the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused persons had actual knowledge that Ayisi and Okum were unlicensed miners.
The prosecution, led by the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, is yet to file its response to the submission of no case.
The case has been adjourned to March 10, 2026.
A submission of no case is a right granted to accused persons under Section 173 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).
It allows accused persons to convince a court that the prosecution had failed to make a prima facie case to warrant them opening their defence.
In the event a trial court finds merit in a submission of no case, the accused persons are discharged, but if not, they are directed to open their defence.
