Court admits video footage in Akonta Mining trial
The footage is contained on a pen drive and was referenced in the witness statement of former Western Regional Minister Kwabena Okyere Darko-Mensah.
An Accra High Court has allowed video footage from Akonta Mining’s Samreboi concession to be used as evidence in the trial of the company and its director, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi.
The footage is contained on a pen drive and was referenced in the witness statement of former Western Regional Minister Kwabena Okyere Darko-Mensah.
The prosecution objected to its admission, raising concerns about the absence of timestamps and independent verification of the location captured in the video.
But Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay ruled that those concerns do not make the evidence inadmissible.
She held that questions about time, location and reliability should be tested during cross-examination and considered when determining the weight to attach to the footage.
The court also admitted Mr Darko-Mensah’s witness statement dated May 25.
However, it rejected a separate witness statement by Evans Adai because it was filed late.
The case has been adjourned to June 1.
The ruling comes as the defence continues to challenge the prosecution’s theory of the case.
Lawyers for Chairman Wontumi argue that the matter should not be treated as one of illegal mining or unlawful occupation of land, since the state has acknowledged that Akonta Mining has a valid concession.
They say the real issue is whether activities carried out within the concession amounted to an unlawful assignment or transfer of mineral rights.
The defence relies on the Minerals and Mining Support Services Regulations, 2012, L.I. 2174, arguing that licensed mining companies may engage contractors or support service providers.
According to the defence, the mere involvement of such persons on a concession does not automatically amount to a transfer of mineral rights.
They maintain that the prosecution must prove an actual assignment agreement, a change in ownership or control of the concession, and criminal intent.
The defence has also questioned whether the state has produced evidence of any formal transfer agreement.
It insists that criminal liability must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, not assumptions or public perception.
