Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Chamber of Mines, Ing. Ken Ashigbey, has welcomed the conviction of New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, but says the 20-year prison sentence is insufficient given the impact of illegal mining.
His comments follow the ruling by the Criminal Division of the High Court, which sentenced Chairman Wontumi to 20 years’ imprisonment on each of two counts, with both custodial terms to run concurrently. The court also imposed a fine of 10,000 penalty units on each count.
Akonta Mining Limited was also convicted and ordered to pay 15,000 penalty units on each of two counts.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay held that the prosecution had proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt, leading to Wontumi’s conviction on Counts One and Four, while Akonta Mining Limited was convicted on Counts Three and Six.
Speaking in an interview after the ruling, Ashigbey described the verdict as an important milestone in Ghana’s fight against illegal mining, saying it sends a strong signal that offenders will be held accountable.
A longstanding advocate against illegal mining, he expressed the hope that others found guilty of similar offences would also face the full force of the law, including custodial sentences and financial penalties where necessary.
He further called on the Mahama administration to ensure that the enforcement of mining laws is carried out consistently and without regard to political affiliation or social status.
The convictions came after the High Court dismissed a last-minute application by the defence seeking to delay the judgment and refer constitutional questions raised during the trial to the Supreme Court.
The defence argued that issues arising from its legal submissions required interpretation by the apex court before judgment could be delivered.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay, however, rejected the application, ruling that the relevant provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), were clear and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, allowing the court to proceed with the delivery of its judgment.
