In The Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Chairman Wontumi, Kwame Antwi (at large), and Akonta Mining Company Limited, the High Court of Justice (Criminal Court 4), Accra, presid
The report indicates that this is a bit of hard law. After an early morning court session Monday, I entered this courtroom and spent about 45 minutes listening to the delivery of this judgment before heading to a case in the Commercial Court two floors up in the complex. A judgment of this magnitude, touching on environmental degradation and the exploitation of public resources, carries legal significance that resonates far beyond the courtroom.
It further notes that by the time I left, the judge was concluding her detailed analysis of the facts and evidence on Counts 4 and 6. Her meticulous approach was striking. Initially, I was under the impression that Chairman Wontumi had still not filed his address. What emerges is a judgment with profound implications for corporate governance, statutory compliance, and the national fight against galamsey.
This brief unpacks the judgment – from the preliminary constitutional challenges and the piercing of the corporate veil to the evidentiary standards, statutory prison remission calculations, and financial penalties imposed by the court.
In The Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Chairman Wontumi, Kwame Antwi (at large), and Akonta Mining Company Limited, the High Court of Justice (Criminal Court 4), Accra, presided over by Her Ladyship Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, delivered the judgment addressing the regulatory and criminal frameworks governing national mineral exploitation. That is what this case was essentially about – allowing third parties onto an exclusive concession without the required prior ministerial approval.
The State mounted six charges against the 1st Accused, Bernard Antwi Boasiako (A1). The 3rd Accused is Akonta Mining Company Limited (A3), which he co-owns with the 2nd Accused, Kwame Antwi (A2), who remained at large throughout the trial.
All charges were grounded in the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995). The charges centered on two primary offences:
Factual Background: The Samreboi Operation and Seized Evidence
The narrative established by the Prosecution indicated that on April 16, 2025, police officers embarked on an “anti-galamsey” operation in the Samreboi Forest within the Western Region. The next day, the team arrested Michael Gyadu Ayisi (PW1) alongside 28 workers occupying a physical structure bearing the bold corporate name of Akonta Mining Company Limited (A3).
At the site, law enforcement seized an array of equipment and contraband, including:
During police interrogation, Michael Gyadu Ayisi (PW1) named Henry Okum (PW2) as his employer who directed operations on the concession. Following his arrest, Henry Okum (PW2) stated that in September 2024, he struck an oral arrangement with Bernard Antwi Boasiako (A1) to enter Akonta Mining’s concession to extract gold from unmined portions while using part of the gold proceeds to fund land reclamation (specifically planting coconut seedlings) on degraded, mined-out areas.
In his caution statement (Exhibit C) and witness statement, Bernard Antwi Boasiako (A1) admitted to granting verbal permission to Henry Okum (PW2), but asserted that his authorization was strictly restricted to land reclamation. A1 maintained that PW2’s gold mining activities were unauthorized and conducted without his knowledge.
Key Evidence and How the Court Resolved the Issues
To resolve the case, the court isolated the essential legal requirements for each charge and evaluated the evidence to determine whether those legal tests were met beyond a reasonable doubt.
1. Resolution of Preliminary Constitutional Challenge
