Atta Akyea Files Sweeping Appeal to Quash Wontumi’s Illegal Mining

Lawyers for Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, have formally lodged an appeal at Ghana’s Court of Appeal seeking to overturn his conviction and sentence in the illegal mining case, arguing that the High Court committed significant legal, evidential and constitutional errors in reaching its decision.

The notice of appeal, filed on Tuesday by lead counsel Samuel Atta Akyea, challenges the entire judgment delivered by the High Court (Criminal Division 4) on July 20, 2026, and asks the appellate court to set aside both the conviction and the sentence imposed on Wontumi and Akonta Mining Company Limited.

The appeal raises more than 20 grounds, beginning with the argument that the convictions are unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence presented during the trial. According to the defence, the prosecution failed to establish the legal threshold required for criminal liability.

Mr Atta Akyea further argues that the trial court misconstrued key provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended. The appeal maintains that when the legislation is interpreted as a whole, its combined effect supports the innocence of the appellants rather than their criminal culpability.

Another major pillar of the appeal concerns constitutional jurisdiction. The defence contends that the trial judge exceeded the powers of the High Court by interpreting constitutional provisions in a manner that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of Ghana’s Supreme Court under Article 130 of the 1992 Constitution.

The legal team also disputes the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of the prosecution’s second witness, whom the defence describes as a self-confessed illegal miner and participant in the alleged mining activities. Counsel argues that the credibility and evidential weight attached to the witness’s testimony were misplaced.

In addition, the appeal challenges the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution, insisting that it did not irresistibly point to the guilt of the accused and that other reasonable explanations consistent with innocence remained available.

The defence further argues that prosecutors failed to establish the necessary mens rea, or criminal intent, required to sustain the offences for which the appellants were convicted.

Mr Atta Akyea is also challenging the High Court’s decision to lift the corporate veil in finding Akonta Mining Company Limited criminally liable, describing the approach as legally unsustainable under established company law principles.

According to the notice of appeal, the trial court also failed to adequately consider exculpatory evidence that favoured the defence, while the custodial sentences imposed are described as inordinately harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal is expected to determine whether the High Court properly interpreted Ghana’s mining laws, correctly evaluated the evidence presented during trial, and acted within its constitutional jurisdiction. Its ruling could have significant implications for future prosecutions involving illegal mining and corporate criminal liability in Ghana.