The court ordered that the two sentences run concurrently, meaning Wontumi will serve a maximum of 20 years in prison.
In addition to the custodial sentence, the court imposed a fine of 10,000 penalty units on Wontumi for each count. Akonta Mining Limited, which was also convicted on two counts, was fined 15,000 penalty units for each offence.
Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay found Wontumi guilty on Counts One and Four, while Akonta Mining Limited was convicted on Counts Three and Six. The court held that the prosecution had proven all the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Court Rejects Last-Minute Constitutional Challenge
Before delivering judgment, the court dismissed an application filed by the defence on July 16, 2026, seeking to halt proceedings and refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court.
The defence argued that constitutional issues raised in its written address required interpretation by the apex court. However, Justice Kocuvie-Tay ruled that Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), was clear and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
Relying on the precedent set in R v. Mainkankan, the judge held that constitutional referrals are only necessary where genuine ambiguity exists.
“The issue raised by counsel is that Parliament ought to have legislated differently. That is not a matter for constitutional interpretation,” the court ruled.
Unlawful Assignment of Mineral Rights
On Counts One and Three, relating to the unlawful assignment of mineral rights without the approval of the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources, the court found that the prosecution had established all the required elements of the offence.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay said the evidence showed that Akonta Mining held the mineral rights, allowed another party to exercise those rights, and did so without obtaining the legally required ministerial approval.
The court noted that the absence of ministerial approval was never disputed. Evidence from the Minerals Commission outlined the statutory approval process, while the accused persons admitted that no such approval had been obtained.
The judge also rejected the defence’s claim that Henry Okum had only been engaged to reclaim degraded portions of the concession.
Instead, the court accepted Okum’s testimony that he was permitted to mine unworked sections of the concession and use the proceeds to finance reclamation activities. The judge observed that this evidence was not challenged during cross-examination and described Wontumi’s explanation that Okum would recover his investment through future coconut farming as “an afterthought.”
The court concluded that allowing another individual to exercise Akonta Mining’s exclusive mining rights constituted an unlawful dealing in mineral rights.
Court Lifts Akonta Mining’s Corporate Veil
Although acknowledging the principle that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, Justice Kocuvie-Tay ruled that the circumstances justified lifting Akonta Mining’s corporate veil.
The court found that the company did not operate through a functional board of directors and that Wontumi exercised effective control over its mining operations. Consequently, the judge held him personally liable for offences committed through the company.
Convicted of Facilitating Illegal Mining
On Counts Four and Six, the court found Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited guilty of purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
According to the judgment, the accused permitted Henry Okum to access the mining concession and conduct mining operations without the approvals required under the Minerals and Mining Act.
The court further found evidence of deliberate facilitation, citing testimony that Wontumi introduced Okum to an individual who assisted him in acquiring an excavator for the mining operations.
While the defence maintained that the arrangement was solely for land reclamation, the court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that mining activities had been authorised.
Defence Arguments Dismissed
The High Court rejected several legal arguments advanced by the defence, including the contention that the phrase “otherwise deal with” in the Minerals and Mining Act should be interpreted narrowly alongside terms such as “assign,” “transfer,” and “mortgage.”
Justice Kocuvie-Tay also dismissed the argument that the absence of written agreements weakened the prosecution’s case, holding that informal arrangements could still give rise to criminal liability.
The judge further ruled that disagreement with Parliament’s legislative choices was not a constitutional issue requiring interpretation by the Supreme Court.
Convictions
The court convicted:
-
Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi) on:
-
Count One – Assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval.
-
Count Four – Purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
-
-
Akonta Mining Limited on:
-
Count Three – Assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval.
-
Count Six – Purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
-
The convictions were secured under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Act 995), which introduced stiffer penalties for illegal mining-related offences.