Minority Caucus Challenges High Court Judgment Convicting Chairman Wontumi

The Parliamentary Minority Caucus is challenging aspects of a High Court judgement that convicted the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, and Akonta Mining Limited.

In a statement issued on July 20, 2026, the minority said it respects the independence of the judiciary but has serious concerns about the legal reasoning and circumstances surrounding the trial.

The High Court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, convicted Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited on two counts each under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, Act 703, as amended.

The Minority Caucus says its concerns include the court’s decision to proceed with the judgement despite the reported absence of Chairman Wontumi’s lead counsel.

According to the Caucus, this raises questions about the constitutional right of an accused person to be represented by a lawyer of their choice, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution.

The minority also questions the circumstances under which the court lifted the corporate veil of Akonta Mining Limited and held Chairman Wontumi personally liable for acts allegedly committed by the company.

While stressing that it does not oppose accountability or the prosecution of illegal mining, the Caucus says its position should not be interpreted as a defence of illegal mining or a request for immunity based on political affiliation.

The minority has expressed solidarity with Chairman Wontumi, his family and members of the NPP, while urging them to pursue all lawful and constitutional avenues available.

It says it will use its position in Parliament and public advocacy to ensure that what it describes as serious concerns about the judgement, including the denial of counsel of choice and the refusal to refer live constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, are properly addressed.

The Caucus drew comparisons with the past Tsatsu Tsikata trial, arguing that concerns over the right to a fair defence should not be applied selectively based on political affiliation.

The minority caucus says its criticism is directed at the legal and constitutional issues arising from the judgement and not at the personal integrity or independence of the presiding judge.