Wontumi files appeal against judgment in Samreboi illegal mining case
The appeal was filed jointly with Akonta Mining Company Limited.
Chairman Wontumi has taken his fight against his conviction in the Samreboi illegal mining case to the Court of Appeal.
The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, whose real name is Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, is asking the appellate court to set aside the entire judgment of the Accra High Court.
The appeal was filed jointly with Akonta Mining Company Limited.
They are challenging the decision of the Accra High Court, Criminal Division 4, delivered on July 20, 2026, by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay.
The case centred on allegations of illegal mining activities linked to Akonta Mining Company Limited, a company associated with Mr Antwi-Boasiako.
Following the conviction, the High Court imposed sanctions on the accused persons.
In their Notice of Appeal, Mr Antwi-Boasiako and Akonta Mining say they are dissatisfied with the judgment and are challenging it in its entirety.
One of their main arguments is that the convictions are not supported by the evidence presented during the trial.
They contend that the trial judge reached conclusions that were unreasonable having regard to the evidence before the court.
The appellants are also faulting the High Court’s interpretation of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, Act 703, as amended.
According to them, the trial judge failed to read the Act as a whole.
They argue that the combined effect of Sections 13(8) and 46 of the Act should have operated in their favour and supported their innocence.
“The learned trial judge did not read the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended, as a whole,” the notice stated.
“The combined effect of sections 13(8) and 46 of the said Act is exculpatory of the 1st and 3rd Appellants and consistent with their innocence.”
Mr Antwi-Boasiako and Akonta Mining are also raising a constitutional jurisdiction argument.
They claim the trial judge wrongly assumed the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by interpreting constitutional provisions that, in their view, required exclusive constitutional interpretation by the apex court.
The appellants specifically rely on Article 130(1)(a) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
They argue that the High Court should not have interpreted Article 19(11) of the Constitution alongside provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act when the parties had competing meanings of the relevant constitutional wording.
According to the notice, the judge erred in treating the words “unless the offence is defined … in a written law” as clear when both sides had advanced rival interpretations.
The appeal now places the High Court’s findings, its reading of the mining law and its constitutional reasoning before the Court of Appeal for review.
The Court of Appeal is expected to fix a date for the hearing, where Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining will seek to have the conviction overturned.
