The High Court in Accra has held Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, personally liable for illegal mining-related offences committed through Akonta Mining Limited, after finding that he exercised effective control over the company’s operations.
The court subsequently sentenced the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) to 20 years in prison on each of the two counts on which he was convicted. The sentences are to run concurrently.
He was also fined 10,000 penalty units on each count.
Akonta Mining Limited, which was convicted on two corresponding counts, was fined 15,000 penalty units for each offence.
Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay convicted Wontumi on Counts One and Four, while Akonta Mining was found guilty on Counts Three and Six after ruling that the prosecution had established all the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
A major aspect of the ruling was the court’s decision to lift the corporate veil separating Wontumi from Akonta Mining Limited.
Although the court acknowledged that a company is ordinarily a separate legal entity from its shareholders, Justice Kocuvie-Tay found that the circumstances of the case justified holding Wontumi personally responsible.
The court found that Akonta Mining did not operate through a functional board of directors and that Wontumi exercised effective control over its mining activities.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay therefore treated him as the de facto controller of the company’s mining lease.
The court also found that Akonta Mining’s mineral rights had been dealt with without the approval of the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources.
According to the court, the prosecution had established that Akonta Mining held the mineral rights, that the rights were transferred, assigned or otherwise dealt with, and that the transaction occurred without the required ministerial approval.
The absence of approval, the court noted, was not disputed by the accused persons.
The judge rejected the defence’s claim that Henry Okum had only been allowed to reclaim degraded sections of the concession and was not involved in mining.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay relied on evidence that Okum, a small-scale miner, had not received funds to undertake reclamation works. Instead, he was permitted to mine unworked portions of the concession and use the proceeds to finance reclamation.
The court noted that this evidence was not challenged during cross-examination.
It also rejected Wontumi’s explanation that Okum would recover his investment through future coconut farming, describing the explanation as an “afterthought.”
The court consequently concluded that allowing another person to exercise Akonta Mining’s exclusive mining rights amounted to unlawful dealing in mineral rights.
On the charges of facilitating unlawful mining, the court found that Wontumi and Akonta Mining deliberately enabled Okum to access the concession and undertake mining activities without the necessary approvals.
The court cited evidence that Wontumi introduced Okum to an individual who assisted him in obtaining an excavator for the operations.
The defence had argued that the arrangement was solely intended for reclamation, but the court held that the evidence showed that permission extended to mining activities.
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 issues raised in the defence’s written address required interpretation by the apex court.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay, however, 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 said a constitutional referral was 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 held.
The court further rejected arguments that the phrase “otherwise deal with” in the Minerals and Mining Act should be narrowly interpreted and that the absence of written agreements weakened the prosecution’s case.
It held that informal arrangements could still attract criminal liability where the elements of an offence had been established.
The ruling marks a significant development in the case, with the court not only convicting Akonta Mining Limited but also holding its alleged controlling mind personally accountable for the company’s unlawful mining-related activities.
