High Court orders Chairman Wontumi to open defence in illegal mining trial

Bernard Antwi Boasiako, widely known as Chairman Wontumi, has been ordered by the High Court in Accra to open his defence in the criminal case linked to alleged illegal mining at Samreboi.

The ruling followed the dismissal of a submission of no case filed on his behalf.

Delivering the decision on Monday, Justice Audrey Kokuvie Tay held that the prosecution had placed enough evidence before the court to require an answer from Mr Boasiako, Akonta Mining, and Kwame Antwi, who is said to be at large.

In effect, the court found that a prima facie case had been made and that the accused persons must now respond to the allegations.

The case centres on claims that mining activity was carried out on a concession in the Western Region without the approval of the sector minister.

The accused are also alleged to have allowed two individuals to operate on the concession without lawful authority and to have facilitated those mining activities.

Before the ruling, lawyers for Mr Boasiako had argued that the prosecution’s case should be brought to an end after the state closed its case with four witnesses.

The defence maintained that the evidence led by the prosecution did not establish the essential ingredients of the offences and was therefore insufficient to justify calling their client to answer.

The prosecution, however, urged the court to reject that argument.

Led by Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Dr Justice Srem-Sai, the state argued that the evidence already before the court was credible, admissible and legally sufficient.

According to the prosecution, Mr Boasiako admitted in both his caution statement and charge statement that he granted the second prosecution witness access to the concession.

The state further argued that the accused did more than merely allow breaches to occur, maintaining that he was linked to the operations through financial alignment, operational access and logistical support provided without the required approvals.

The court accepted that position and ruled that the evidence on record was enough to move the trial into the defence stage.