When Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay delivered her judgment in The Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako & 2 Others (Suit No. CR/0004/2026), the 20-year prison sentence handed to New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, became one of Ghana’s biggest legal stories of 2026.
But before the Accra High Court imposed the sentence, it first rejected a last-minute legal move by Wontumi’s lawyers to stop the judgment and ask the Supreme Court to interpret key provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703).
The ruling represents one of the biggest legal setbacks involving a senior Ghanaian political figure in recent years and has renewed debate about accountability, corporate responsibility and enforcement in Ghana’s mining sector.
This article examines why the Wontumi Supreme Court motion failed, how Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703 shaped the court’s decision, and why the High Court lifted the corporate veil of Akonta Mining Company Limited.
This story falls under News
Why the High Court rejected Wontumi’s Supreme Court bid
Four days before the scheduled judgment on July 20, 2026, lead defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea filed an application asking the Accra High Court to suspend proceedings.
The defence argued that sections 14(1) and 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by Act 995, were vague and conflicted with fair trial protections under Article 19(11) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
The lawyers relied on Article 130(2) of the Constitution, which requires a lower court to refer a matter to the Supreme Court when a genuine constitutional interpretation issue arises during a trial.
However, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay dismissed the application, ruling that the provisions of the mining law were clear and did not create a constitutional interpretation question requiring intervention by the apex court.
The judge relied on the Supreme Court precedent in R v Mainkankan, which established that a referral is only necessary where there is a genuine ambiguity in the law.
According to the court, the defence argument was essentially that Parliament should have drafted the legislation differently, rather than that the law itself required constitutional interpretation.
The decision cleared the way for the High Court to deliver its judgment, which resulted in Wontumi receiving a 20-year custodial sentence.
Read our full report on Wontumi’s conviction and sentencing here.
How Section 99(2)(b) shaped the Wontumi conviction
The prosecution’s case centred on allegations that Wontumi unlawfully allowed another person to operate on Akonta Mining’s concession at Samreboi in Ghana’s Western Region without the required approvals.
During the trial, Wontumi argued that his arrangement with prosecution witness Henry Okoom was not an illegal mining agreement but a verbal arrangement involving land reclamation and coconut plantation development.
He told the court that he believed Okoom was operating as a mining support service provider rather than carrying out unauthorised mining activities.
The High Court rejected that explanation after reviewing the evidence presented during the trial.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay relied on principles of circumstantial evidence from Duah v The Republic [1987-88] 1 GLR 343 and highlighted several findings:
- Okoom testified that he carried out mining activities to recover operational costs after Wontumi failed to provide funds for reclamation work.
- The defence did not provide evidence that Wontumi verified Okoom’s legal authority or technical qualifications.
- No evidence showed that approval had been obtained from the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources before another party operated under the mineral right.
The court found that the explanation involving future coconut plantation proceeds was not supported by the evidence and described it as an afterthought.
The judgment has added to Ghana’s wider debate over the regulation of mining concessions and the government’s efforts to combat illegal mining, commonly known as galamsey.
Why Akonta Mining’s corporate veil was lifted
A major argument by the defence was that Akonta Mining Company Limited was a separate legal entity and that its corporate structure protected Wontumi from personal liability.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Morkor v Kuma [1998-99] SCGLR 620, Justice Kocuvie-Tay held that the corporate veil could be lifted where the separation between a company and an individual controlling it did not reflect the reality of their relationship.
The court found that Akonta Mining did not have a functioning board of directors or executive management structure overseeing the relevant operations.
It concluded that Wontumi was the controlling mind behind the company’s dealings concerning the mineral right.
“The A3’s corporate veil should be lifted as there is no real difference between the two in relation to dealing with the persons permitted to mine,” the court held.
Verdict and sentence breakdown
| Accused | Convictions | Sentence / Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi) | Counts 1 and 4: unlawful assignment and facilitating unlicensed mining | 20 years imprisonment, to run concurrently, plus GH¢120,000 fine |
| Akonta Mining Company Limited | Corporate liability offences under Act 995 | 15,000 penalty units, equivalent to GH¢180,000 |
The judgment marks a major development in Ghana’s fight against illegal mining and raises fresh questions about how companies and individuals connected to mining operations are held accountable.
What happens next after the High Court ruling
Following the judgment, Wontumi and Akonta Mining may explore available legal options, including an appeal against the decision.
Any appeal proceedings could determine whether the High Court’s interpretation of the mining laws and its decision to lift Akonta Mining’s corporate veil will stand.
AudityNews will continue tracking developments from the case, including possible appeals and their implications for Ghana’s mining sector and political landscape.
Related reads
- Chairman Wontumi jailed 20 years over illegal mining offences
- Chairman Wontumi Seeks Plea Deal as GH¢14.3m Ghana Exim Bank Fraud Trial Takes New Twist
- Chairman Wontumi Convicted On All Six Illegal Mining Charges
- Calls grow for Mahama to pardon Camilla Alhassan as jail sentence sparks free speech debate
- 11 Former Presidents and Prime Ministers Who Went from Power to Prison
- Why So Many South Korean Presidents End Up Facing Criminal Charges
Explore more:
News | Business | Entertainment | Lifestyle | Sports
