Full judgment: Why Wontumi was jailed 20 years

The High Court in Accra sentenced businessman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Wontumi, to 20 years’ imprisonment after finding that he unlawfully allowed third parties to mine on a concession belonging to Akonta Mining Company Limited without the required approval from the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources.

Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay delivered the judgment on Monday, July 20, 2026, following a trial in which Wontumi and Akonta Mining denied charges of unlawfully dealing with mineral rights and purposely facilitating an unlicensed mining operation.

The court convicted Wontumi on two counts: assignment of mineral rights without ministerial approval and purposely facilitating an unlicensed mining operation. He received a 20-year prison sentence with hard labour on each count, but the sentences will run concurrently, meaning he will serve an effective term of 20 years.

He was also fined 10,000 penalty units on each count. In default of payment, he is to serve an additional three-year term of imprisonment with hard labour under each count.

The arrangement with Henry Okum

The case arose from an arrangement between Wontumi and small-scale miner Henry Okum concerning Akonta Mining’s concession in the Samreboi area of the Western Region.

Wontumi admitted that he gave Okum permission to enter the concession but maintained throughout the trial that the permission was strictly for land reclamation, including planting coconut seedlings on portions of the land that had already been mined.

Okum, however, told the court that the arrangement permitted him to mine unworked portions of the concession and use part of the proceeds to finance the reclamation of degraded areas.

The court accepted Okum’s version after examining the surrounding circumstances. It found that Wontumi did not provide Okum with money to undertake the reclamation exercise, while evidence that the reclamation was financed with proceeds from gold mined on the concession was not effectively challenged.

Justice Kocuvie-Tay consequently rejected Wontumi’s explanation that the cost of the reclamation was expected to be recovered from the future sale of mature coconut trees, describing that explanation as an afterthought.

Police operation uncovered large-scale mining activity

The activities on the concession came to the attention of the authorities during an anti-illegal mining operation in April 2025.

Police arrested Michael Gyadu Ayisi and 28 other people within and around the Akonta Mining concession in the Samreboi Forest. They were occupying a structure bearing the name of Akonta Mining.

The police retrieved 25 serviceable excavators, four non-serviceable excavators, water-pumping machines, motorcycles, vehicles, firearms, ammunition, pieces of metal suspected to be gold and GH¢157,000.

Ayisi identified Okum as his employer and said he had been assigned to supervise mining activities on the concession. Okum subsequently told investigators that he had obtained Wontumi’s permission to enter the concession and mine for gold.

Reclamation defence rejected

The court found significant weaknesses in Wontumi’s claim that Okum was brought onto the land solely to undertake reclamation.

Okum was a licensed small-scale miner and had no demonstrated experience as a land reclamation contractor. The judgment said Wontumi failed to verify Okum’s claimed competence as a mine-support service provider and never visited the site to ensure that only reclamation was taking place.

The court also noted that land reclamation is itself a regulated mine-support service that can only be undertaken by a properly registered and licensed service provider. Okum had neither registered nor obtained a licence to provide reclamation services.

Even on Wontumi’s own account, therefore, the court held that allowing an unlicensed person to undertake reclamation constituted a breach of the Minerals and Mining Act.

Excavators and REGSEC involvement

The court also relied on evidence that Wontumi assisted Okum in obtaining heavy equipment for the operation.

Okum testified that Wontumi introduced him to an excavator supplier and initially made part-payment for some equipment. Wontumi admitted introducing Okum to an equipment supplier but said the machinery was intended for reclamation rather than mining.

The court further found that Wontumi used Akonta Mining’s letterhead to seek assistance from the Western Regional Security Council to protect Okum’s activities on the concession.

According to the judgment, these actions demonstrated that Wontumi was not merely aware of Okum’s presence on the land but had purposely facilitated the operations. The court said the involvement of the excavator supplier and the request for security protection supported the prosecution’s case.

No ministerial approval

Under Section 14(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, a mineral right cannot be transferred, assigned, mortgaged, encumbered or otherwise dealt with without the prior written approval of the minister.

The court found that neither Wontumi nor Akonta Mining applied for or obtained such approval.

It rejected the defence argument that an oral arrangement permitting another person to mine did not amount to an assignment or dealing in mineral rights.

Justice Kocuvie-Tay ruled that permitting a third party to exercise the exclusive right to extract minerals from a concession amounted to dealing with or encumbering the mineral right, regardless of whether the arrangement was written or verbal.

The judge said accepting the defence’s argument would allow mineral-right holders to avoid the law simply by making informal oral arrangements instead of executing written agreements.

Court lifted Akonta Mining’s corporate veil

Although the mining lease was registered in the name of Akonta Mining, the court found that Wontumi was the company’s sole controlling mind during the relevant period.

The judgment said there was no evidence of a functioning board, proper management structure or regular corporate governance system within Akonta Mining. The company’s other director, Kwame Antwi, had reportedly been outside the country and uninvolved in its affairs since 2021 or 2022.

All dealings with Okum were conducted personally and informally by Wontumi, without board resolutions, written agreements or other corporate documentation.

The court therefore lifted Akonta Mining’s corporate veil and found that there was no meaningful distinction between Wontumi and the company in relation to the arrangement with Okum. It consequently treated Wontumi as the true and de facto holder of the mineral right.

Why the court imposed 20 years

In imposing the sentence, the court acknowledged that Wontumi and Akonta Mining were first-time offenders and considered the mitigation presented by their lawyer.

However, Justice Kocuvie-Tay stressed the gravity of the offences and the need for a deterrent sentence as Ghana continues to confront the environmental consequences of illegal mining.

The court said the offences involved the unlawful exploitation of mineral resources belonging to the State, undermined the country’s mining regulatory framework and contributed to environmental degradation.

Wontumi was consequently sentenced to 20 years with hard labour on each of the two counts, with the terms running concurrently.

Akonta Mining was separately fined 15,000 penalty units on each of the two counts on which it was convicted, amounting to a total of 30,000 penalty units.

The court also ordered that all equipment, vehicles, money and other items retrieved from the concession be forfeited to the State.

Kwame Antwi, the second accused person and another director of Akonta Mining, remained at large and did not appear before the court during the trial.

Read the full judgment below;