Accra: The High Court has postponed the case involving Akonta Mining Limited and its owner, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, to Tuesday, June 16, 2026, for further cross-examination of the prosecution's witness. The postponement comes after arguments by the defense regarding claims that vehicles and equipment displaying Akonta Mining's logo automatically belong to the company.
According to Ghana Web, prosecutors allege that Akonta Mining conducted unauthorized mining operations within the Tano Nimiri Forest Reserve without obtaining necessary approvals from relevant state authorities, including the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. Speaking to Channel One after the June 8, 2026 proceedings, defense counsel Andy Kwame Appiah-Kubi stated that the prosecution's witness admitted that a logo on a property does not necessarily establish ownership.
Appiah-Kubi explained, "We walked in that line, and he admitted a logo does not necessarily indicate ownership. Indeed, you remember that I even tendered in my own jacket that has an inscription in it as Azaru, which doesn't mean that the jacket belongs to Azaru; it belongs to Andy Appiah-Kubi, but with that inscription, so we're trying to demonstrate that, notwithstanding, maybe even an inscription on a property does not conclusively determine who owns it."
He further noted that the witness acknowledged that inscriptions alone cannot be used to determine property ownership. Appiah-Kubi elaborated, "So, this is what we did, and he confirmed that that is the case, and the question that was rejected was that there are also police vehicles that are unmarked, and my lady thinks that that is not relevant to the subject matter. But again, it is established that the fact that there is an inscription on the property does not indicate an owner."
During the cross-examination, the witness confirmed that equipment ownership could be verified through registration records. Appiah-Kubi recounted, "You remember that I established the platform by walking him through the equipments they make references to and the possibility of identifying ownership through registration and he confirmed all that so I said that based on his confirmations is it the case that Akonta Mines owns any of the equipments they pointing to and the answer was no and the only connection according to him was that somebody is connected to Akonta Mines and one of the equipment is connected to him."
The defense indicated that issues concerning registration, inscriptions, and alleged links between individuals and Akonta Mining would be further scrutinized when the case resumes. Appiah-Kubi added, "Whether in registration or inscription is something that we need to determine at the adjourned date, and whether or not that person is connected to Akonta Mines is another matter that we need to investigate. Indeed, that person has been in court."
He concluded by mentioning that a witness had testified in court about his associations, distinct from Akonta Mines, but involving Chinese experts, stating, "He has come to testify, and he has also indicated his associations devoid of Akonta Mines, but his association with Chinese experts, and he also indicated in court that he is a translator for the Chinese."