Chairman Wontumi's lawyer asks Supreme Court to interpret mining law

Lawyers for Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, the Ashanti Regional Chairman of Ghana's New Patriotic Party (NPP), are seeking a Supreme Court review of the Minerals and Mining Act. They argue that the law's provisions used to prosecute their client are unconstitutional.

Samuel Atta Akyea, representing Chairman Wontumi, has asked the High Court to refer the case to the Supreme Court for interpretation. He contends that if the case is not referred, Chairman Wontumi should be acquitted of the charges brought by the Attorney-General.

“

should the case not be referred to the Supreme Court, Chairman Wontumi ought to be acquitted on the charges filed by the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General alleges that Chairman Wontumi and his company permitted two individuals to conduct mining operations on their concession without the necessary ministerial approval. This action allegedly violates the law, leading to charges of assigning mineral rights without approval and facilitating unlicensed mining in Samreboi, Western Region.

“

whether, on a true and proper interpretation of Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, Section 14(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), one of the provisions underpinning the charges against his client, is legally vague, overbroad and inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the said article, and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

Chairman Wontumi has pleaded not guilty to these charges. His legal team wants the Supreme Court to determine if specific sections of the Minerals and Mining Act, particularly Section 14(1) and Section 99(2)(b), are unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and inconsistent with Article 19(11) of Ghana's 1992 Constitution.

Judgment in the case is scheduled for July 20, 2026. The defense's challenge questions the legal foundation of the charges against their client.

“

whether, on the same constitutional test, Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703, as amended by Section 3 of the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995), and which likewise forms the basis of some of the charges, is legally overbroad and inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Article 19(11), and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.