High Court Rejects Wontumi’s Request for Additional Disclosures in Mining Case
Court Rules Defence Has No Basis to Demand Non-Existent Documents
- High Court dismisses Wontumi’s request for additional disclosures
- Prosecution says no deed or agreement exists; absence is part of the offence
- Case will proceed to the next phase of the Case Management Conference
The High Court has dismissed an application by lawyers representing Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, who sought additional disclosures from state prosecutors in his ongoing trial.
Wontumi faces allegations of allowing unlawful mining on his Samreboi concession.
Wontumi’s lawyer, Andy Appiah Kubi, argued that a prosecution witness relied on a deed or agreement allegedly signed by Wontumi and another accused, and the defence needed copies to properly prepare for trial.
However, Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai opposed the application, calling it legally misconceived. She explained that under the 2018 Practice Direction on Disclosures and Case Management, additional disclosures must be justified as exculpatory evidence, a condition the defence had not met.
Dr. Srem-Sai added that the prosecution does not possess any deed or written agreement, and that the offence under Section 14 of the Minerals and Mining Act does not require such a document. In fact, the absence of a proper deed is considered an element of the crime, which involves permitting mining without lawful authority.
After reviewing the motion and supporting affidavit, the Court concluded that the defence had no legal basis for requesting the documents. With the prosecution stating unequivocally that the documents do not exist, the Court dismissed the application.
The case, which revolves around allegations that Wontumi allowed mining on his Samreboi concession without authorization, will now proceed to the next phase of the Case Management Conference.
