Lawyers representing Bernard Antwi Boasiako, widely known as Chairman Wontumi, and Akonta Mining Company Limited have submitted a comprehensive written address to the High Court. This submission, made on July 13, 2026, ahead of the judgment in The Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Wontumi and 2 Others, argues for the acquittal of the first and third accused.
The defence contends that Sections 14(1) and 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by Act 995, violate Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution. They claim these sections are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. This legal challenge forms a central pillar of their argument, aiming to persuade the court to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for constitutional interpretation.
This case highlights ongoing scrutiny of Ghana's mining sector, particularly concerning illegal mining, known as 'galamsey'. The legal arguments presented could have significant implications for how mining regulations are enforced and interpreted in the future. The outcome will influence investor confidence and the government's efforts to formalize the sector.
Samuel Atta Akyea of Zoe, Akyea & Co., representing the accused, stated that Section 99(2)(b) is a default penalty provision without a clear underlying offence definition. He also argued that Section 14(1) imposes negative duties on individuals while creating vague procedural duties for the Minister. The phrase "otherwise encumbered or dealt in" is considered unconstitutionally broad by the defence.
The defence is urging the High Court to stay judgment and refer the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 130(2) of the Constitution. They cite Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates that "No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law." This constitutional provision is fundamental to ensuring legal clarity and fairness in criminal proceedings.
Legal precedents such as Debrah v. The Republic [1991] 2 GLR 517 and Tsatsu Tsikata v. The Republic [2003-2004] SCGLR 1068 were cited to support the "void-for-vagueness" doctrine. Justice Acquah in Debrah v. The Republic emphasized that individuals must know the offence and its punishment beforehand. Justice Modibo Ocran in Tsatsu Tsikata v. The Republic affirmed the void-for-vagueness doctrine as a legitimate standard for judicial review of legislation under the 1992 Constitution.
The defence also referenced Mark Darlington Osae v. Food and Drugs Authority and Attorney-General (2024), where Justice Ackah-Yensu stated that a law is unconstitutionally vague when people of common intelligence must guess its meaning. This principle, rooted in Baron De Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws," advocates for concise, simple, and clear legal expressions. These citations underscore the defence's argument that the current wording of the Minerals and Mining Act sections is insufficient.
Regarding the assignment issue (Counts 1 & 3), the defence established that Akonta Mining Company Limited holds a valid 10-year mining lease over the Samreboi concession. However, they pointed out that Bernard Antwi Boasiako personally holds no mineral rights. To counter the claim that he assigned mineral rights, the defence highlighted testimony from Prosecution Witness 1 (Michael Gyadu Ayisi), who admitted under cross-examination on January 12 and 13, 2026, that he did not know Bernard Antwi Boasiako personally and was employed solely by Henry Okum (PW2).
Prosecution Witness 2 also confirmed having no corporate link to Akonta Mining, stating he was not a staff, director, or shareholder. The defence further contended that the general phrase "otherwise encumbered or dealt in" under Section 14(1) should be interpreted narrowly under the doctrine of ejusdem generis. This legal principle suggests that general words following specific words in a statute should be interpreted as referring to things of the same kind as the specific words. This interpretation would limit the scope of the alleged offence.
The High Court's decision on whether to refer these constitutional questions to the Supreme Court will be a critical juncture. A referral could delay the trial significantly and set a precedent for future challenges to legislative clarity. The outcome will be closely watched by legal experts, mining companies, and environmental advocates across Ghana. It could reshape the legal landscape for mining operations and regulatory oversight.