Lawyers asks High Court to stay judgment in Wontumi’s Samreboi case, buys ‘injury time’ at Supreme Court
Lawyers for the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, have asked the High Court to refer key provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act to the Supreme Court for constitutional interpretation.
The request was made by lead counsel Samuel Atta Akyea in a written address to the Criminal Division of the High Court, where Chairman Wontumi is standing trial.
Counsel argued that if the High Court declines to refer the constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, then his client should be acquitted of all the charges brought against him by the Attorney-General.
Chairman Wontumi and his company have been charged with allegedly allowing two individuals to carry out mining activities on the company's concession at Samreboi in the Western Region without the approval of the sector minister, contrary to the Minerals and Mining Act.
He faces two counts of assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval and two counts of intentionally facilitating an unlicensed mining operation. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges before Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay.
Mr. Atta Akyea is asking the Supreme Court to determine whether Section 14(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), one of the legal provisions underpinning the prosecution's case, is vague, overly broad and inconsistent with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. He contends that if found unconstitutional, the provision should be declared null and void.
He is also seeking an interpretation of Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703, as amended by Section 3 of the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995), arguing that the provision is similarly overbroad and incompatible with Article 19(11) of the Constitution.
In addition, the defence wants the apex court to determine whether counts four and six of the charge sheet, which are based solely on Section 99(2)(b) as amended, are themselves unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
The High Court is expected to deliver its ruling on the application on July 20, 2026.