Omanghana
Lawyers for Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, have filed an appeal seeking to overturn his conviction and 20-year prison sentence in the Akonta Mining case.
The notice of appeal was submitted to the Court of Appeal by a legal team led by Samuel Atta Akyea on Tuesday, July 28, 2026. Reports indicate that the court registry processed the filing at approximately 1:40 p.m.
The appeal marks the beginning of a new stage in the high-profile prosecution of the New Patriotic Party’s Ashanti Regional Chairman, who is currently serving his sentence at the Nsawam Medium Security Prison.
His lawyers are asking the appellate court to set aside both the conviction and sentence imposed by the Criminal Division of the Accra High Court.
High Court Imposed Two Concurrent Sentences
On July 20, 2026, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay convicted Antwi Boasiako of offences arising from mining operations on an Akonta Mining Limited concession at Samreboi in the Western Region.
The court imposed two 20-year custodial sentences but ordered them to run concurrently. This means the effective term is 20 years rather than 40 years.
He was also fined 10,000 penalty units on each of the two counts. A three-year default sentence would apply if the fines are not paid, although that term was also ordered to run concurrently.
Akonta Mining Limited was convicted and fined 15,000 penalty units on each of two counts.
The prosecution’s case was that Antwi Boasiako and the company allowed Henry Okoom and Michael Gyedu Ayisi to undertake mining activities on the Samreboi concession without first obtaining approval from the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources.
Under Ghana’s mining laws, a mineral-right holder cannot simply assign or transfer those rights to another person without the required ministerial authorization.
What the High Court Found
The High Court accepted that Akonta Mining had lawfully obtained rights over the concession. The central issue was whether the company subsequently permitted other people to operate there without securing the necessary approval.
Prosecutors argued that the arrangement went beyond allowing access to the land. They said evidence showed the deployment of mining machinery, the extraction of gold and the facilitation of operations by individuals who did not hold the required authorization.
The court found that Antwi Boasiako, as the mineral-right holder and controlling figure behind the company, had a responsibility to supervise activities on the concession.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay also concluded that no application had been made for ministerial approval before the disputed operations began.
The court rejected the defense’s argument that Okoom had only been brought onto the land to carry out reclamation work. It found that the prosecution had proved the relevant offences beyond reasonable doubt.
During the trial, the state called four witnesses, while the defense also presented four witnesses. The report on the judgment detailed the prosecution’s claim that the two operators were permitted to mine without the required approval.
Defense Challenges Sufficiency of Evidence
Antwi Boasiako’s lawyers are expected to argue that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient direct and independently verifiable evidence of an unlawful assignment of mineral rights.
The defense maintains that the trial court relied on assumptions and inferences instead of evidence satisfying the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Atta Akyea has also questioned the prosecution’s reliance on testimony from people allegedly connected to the mining activities. He argues that evidence from alleged accomplices required careful scrutiny and adequate independent corroboration.
The defense’s acknowledgement that Akonta Mining lawfully acquired the concession is not disputed. Its case is that lawful ownership did not translate into proof that Antwi Boasiako illegally transferred or assigned those rights.
The Court of Appeal will have to examine the trial record, the evidence presented by both sides and the legal reasoning behind the High Court’s conclusions.
Appeal Does Not Automatically Suspend Sentence
Filing a notice of appeal does not by itself cancel the conviction or automatically release Antwi Boasiako from prison.
His legal team would have to pursue any separate application for bail or suspension of the sentence pending the determination of the appeal. A court considering such an application would assess the circumstances of the case and whether the proposed appeal raises substantial grounds.
The Attorney-General’s Department will also have an opportunity to respond to the appeal and defend the conviction.
The appellate court could uphold the judgment, overturn the conviction, order a retrial or interfere with the sentence if it identifies a material error in law, procedure or the assessment of the evidence.
NPP Describes Judgment as Politically Motivated
The conviction has generated fierce political debate between the opposition NPP and the governing National Democratic Congress.
NPP General Secretary Justin Kodua Frimpong described the judgment as fundamentally flawed and unsupported by the evidence. The party has characterized Antwi Boasiako as a “political prisoner” and accused the government of using state institutions to target political opponents.
Those claims remain political allegations and are not established findings of the court.
The judiciary and state prosecutors have defended the proceedings as part of the lawful enforcement of Ghana’s mining legislation.
Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai, who led the prosecution, has maintained that the state presented credible documentary evidence, witness testimony and admissions covering the essential elements of the offences.
Before the verdict, the prosecution argued that the evidence established the existence of the mineral rights, the absence of ministerial approval, the deployment of machinery and active mining on the concession.
Other Legal Proceedings Continue
Antwi Boasiako is also facing separate proceedings involving an alleged GH¢30 million transaction connected to the Ghana Export-Import Bank.
That case was adjourned to August 27, 2026, to allow the parties additional time to continue discussions over a possible plea agreement. The EXIM Bank proceedings are separate from the Samreboi mining conviction and should not be interpreted as proof of guilt.
The Court of Appeal has not yet announced when it will hear the challenge to the mining conviction. Until the appeal is determined or another court order is issued, the High Court’s judgment and 20-year sentence remain in force.
Source: Omanghana
