Minority Cites ‘Major Defects’ in Wontumi Judgment, Vows Legal and Parliamentary Action
Parliamentary Minority challenges High Court’s 20-year sentence of Chairman Wontumi, alleging severe legal flaws, denial of counsel, and corporate veil overreach.
- The Minority Caucus plans to pursue legal appeals and parliamentary action to overturn Wontumi’s 20-year prison sentence.
- MP Patricia Appiagyei cited four legal defects, including delivering judgment without lead defense counsel present.
- The caucus argued the court improperly treated Akonta Mining Limited and Chairman Wontumi as the same entity to secure separate convictions.
The Minority Caucus in Parliament has rejected the High Court ruling sentencing Bernard Antwi Boasiako—popularly known as Chairman Wontumi—to 20 years in prison, characterizing the judgment as fundamentally flawed and legally unsound.
Speaking to journalists at Parliament House on Tuesday, July 21, Deputy Minority Leader Patricia Appiagyei declared that the caucus will use all available parliamentary, legal, and public channels to challenge the ruling against the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
“The Minority will do whatever is lawfully and properly within its powers, through Parliament and through public advocacy, to see that justice is done and that the defects which have robbed the judgment of its legitimacy are corrected,” Appiagyei stated.
Four Key Grounds for Legal Challenge
The Minority outlined four primary procedural and legal defects that they argue led to a severe miscarriage of justice during the trial:
-
Denial of Right to Counsel: The judgment was delivered in the absence of Wontumi’s lead defense counsel, despite the court being formally notified of the attorney’s prior professional engagement abroad.
-
Failure to Refer Constitutional Questions: The caucus argued that the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction by refusing to refer constitutional interpretations regarding Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act to the Supreme Court, unilaterally ruling the provision “clear and unambiguous.”
-
Improper Piercing of the Corporate Veil: The court convicted both Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited separately on distinct counts, yet relied on legal reasoning that treated the individual and the corporate entity as identical. “A court cannot dissolve a company to convict the man,” Appiagyei noted.
-
Overreach in Sentencing: The caucus contends the trial judge misapplied statutory guidelines to deliver an overly harsh sentence without addressing unresolved constitutional ambiguities.
Next Steps: Appeal and Advocacy
The Minority confirmed that these identified flaws will serve as the foundation for a formal appeal to overturn the conviction. Alongside the legal process, the caucus plans to escalate political advocacy to rally support for what it describes as a fight for judicial fairness and political justice.
