Introduction In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, the final written address of learned counsel emerges as the consummate shield – meticulously forged to safeguard the accused’s inviolable presumption of innocence. It is here that Defence Counsel weaves the facts, testimonies, evidence, and law into a tapestry of persuasion, designed to move the judicial mind toward the only just conclusion: acquittal and discharge. On July 13, 2026, ahead of the High Court’s delivery of judgment in The Republic v.
Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Wontumi and 2 Others case, learned counsel Samuel Atta Akyea of Zoe, Akyea & Co. submitted a comprehensive written address on behalf of the 1st Accused (Bernard Antwi Boasiako, alias Chairman Wontumi) and the 3rd Accused (Akonta Mining Company Limited). This fourth installment of The Law 101 on the subject examines the core issues, some of the specific factual evidence, and the legal authorities relied upon by the Defence to argue for the acquittal of A1 and A3.
Key issues set down for determination The written address submitted on behalf of A1 and A3 framed the entire trial around three major legal and factual controversies: The preliminary constitutional issue: Whether Sections 14(1) and 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by Act 995, violate the principle of legality under Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution for vagueness and overbreadth, requiring a mandatory reference to the Supreme Court under Article 130(2). The assignment issue (Counts 1 & 3): Whether permitting a third party to enter a concession for land reclamation and coconut planting constitutes a “transfer, assignment, mortgage, encumbrance, or dealing” in a mineral right without written ministerial approval under Section 14(1) of Act 703. The facilitation issue (Counts 4 & 6): Whether A1 and A3 acted with the requisite criminal intention (mens rea) to purposely facilitate an unlicensed mining operation under Section 99(2) (b) of Act 703.
Issue 1: Constitutional validity & void-for-vagueness Defence arguments & factual foundation The Defence argued that Section 99(2)(b) is a default penalty provision lacking an underlying substantive offence definition. They submitted that Section 14(1) imposes negative duties on individuals while simultaneously creating procedural duties for the Minister, leaving the phrase “otherwise encumbered or deal… Samartex Timber & Plywood Company Ltd v.
E1/5/22) Introduction The judicial chronicle of Akonta Mining Company Limited and its directing mind, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, famously known as Chairman Wontumi, presents one of the most revealing case studies in modern Ghanaian natural resource litigation. Reading these decisions side by side reveals a striking pattern: Chairman Wontumi’s operational fixation on the forest reserves and riverbanks of Samreboi is neither recent nor incidental. It spans over a decade of continuous friction with local communities, state regulators, and private commercial interest holders.
In my first analysis, I examined the July 20, 2026 criminal prosecution, which resulted in a historic 20-year prison sentence under Sections 14 and 99 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by Act 995. In the second installment, I reviewed the 2019 judgment in the civil suit, where Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong detailed how Wontumi’s earlier illegal Samreboi operations led to the destruction of the Tano River environment and held that state security forces acting out of public necessity could not be held liable in tort. In this third chapter, a judgment delivered on May 19, 2023, by Her Ladyship Afia N.
Summary from source