Samuel Atta Akyea, lead counsel for Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has announced an appeal against his client's conviction. The defence team has identified more than 20 grounds for appeal, arguing the trial was marred by fundamental constitutional and legal errors. This significant legal challenge could impact future interpretations of judicial jurisdiction in Ghana.
A primary issue the defence will raise is the trial judge's decision not to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court for interpretation before delivering judgment. Mr. Atta Akyea stated that the case involved constitutional questions under Articles 130 and 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, as well as provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act. Only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret these specific legal frameworks.
This legal dispute fits into a broader narrative of judicial oversight and constitutional interpretation within Ghana's legal system. The 1992 Constitution outlines clear divisions of power, with the Supreme Court serving as the final arbiter of constitutional matters. Cases involving conflicting interpretations of constitutional provisions often require referral to the apex court to ensure legal consistency and uphold the rule of law. This appeal highlights the ongoing importance of these checks and balances in Ghana's democratic framework.
Speaking on JoyFM's Top Story on Tuesday, July 21, Samuel Atta Akyea stated, "So far we've assembled no less than 20 grounds of appeal. The first one is a constitutional imperative that Her Ladyship was bound to make a reference to the Supreme Court for the determination of critical issues." He further contended that by determining the constitutional questions herself, the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction. "The court graduated itself into the Supreme Court to make a determination of constitutional matters," he added, emphasizing the gravity of this alleged error.
The outcome of this appeal will be closely watched by legal practitioners and political observers. A successful appeal could set a precedent regarding the High Court's obligation to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, potentially influencing how similar cases are handled in the future. It will also test the robustness of Ghana's judicial review process and its commitment to constitutional principles. Decision-makers and legal scholars will be keen to see how the Court of Appeal addresses these complex constitutional arguments.
Mr. Atta Akyea cited the Akosah case, which he said establishes that where parties place rival interpretations on constitutional provisions, the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court. He argued that both the defence and the Attorney General advanced competing interpretations of the Constitution during the trial. This made it mandatory for the High Court to seek guidance from the apex court, according to the defence counsel.
The former Akim Abuakwa South Member of Parliament described the judge's refusal to refer the constitutional issues as a serious error. He maintained that the charges against Chairman Wontumi failed to satisfy the constitutional requirement that criminal offences and their corresponding penalties be clearly defined. This requirement is enshrined in Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, which protects individuals from conviction unless the offence and its penalty are explicitly stated in law.
The defence is confident the Court of Appeal will carefully examine the constitutional and procedural issues raised. They believe the court will determine whether the conviction can stand given the alleged fundamental errors. This case underscores the intricate relationship between statutory law and constitutional interpretation in Ghana's legal landscape.