Accra: The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, widely known as Chairman Wontumi, has filed an appeal against his recent conviction and 20-year imprisonment related to the illegal transfer of a mining licence. The appeal has been lodged following the court's decision, which also implicated his company, Akonta Mining Company Limited, in the case.
According to Ghana Web, Wontumi's lead counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea, submitted the notice of appeal, expressing dissatisfaction with the ruling rendered by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay. Both Wontumi and his company are contesting the verdict delivered by the High Court (Criminal Division '4') in Accra. The court document, dated July 28, 2026, indicates that the appellants intend to seek relief from the Court of Appeal.
The grounds for the appeal are extensive, with Wontumi's legal team raising 20 points of contention. Among these, they argue that the judgement was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence presented during the trial. Furthermore, the appellants claim that the trial judge misapplied the mining law and improperly assumed the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The appeal document states that the trial judge failed to consider the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), in its entirety, arguing that sections 13(8) and 46 of the Act, when read together, support the appellants' innocence. Additionally, the document alleges that the judge overstepped her bounds by interpreting constitutional provisions that should fall under the Supreme Court's purview.
Other points raised in the appeal include a challenge to the credibility of a key witness, identified as PW2, whom the defence describes as an illegal miner involved in the alleged activities. The appeal also argues that the evidence presented did not conclusively establish guilt and that alternative explanations were plausible. Furthermore, it contends that there was no demonstrable criminal intent, or mens rea, for the offences charged.
The appeal also questions the decision to hold the company accountable by lifting the corporate veil and criticizes the disregard for evidence that could exonerate the accused. Finally, Wontumi's legal team argues that the 20-year sentence is excessively harsh.