Evidence used in Wontumi's 20-year sentence came from defence testimonies — Deputy Attorney General

The Deputy Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Justice Srem Sai, has expressed surprise over allegations that the prosecution and conviction of the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, were politically motivated.

Chairman Wontumi, Akonta Mining Company Limited and the second accused, Kwame Antwi, who remains at large, were convicted on six counts relating to the unlawful assignment of mineral rights and purposely facilitating unlicensed mining operations within Akonta Mining's concession at Samreboi in the Western Region.

The prosecution said Wontumi, as owner and controlling director of Akonta Mining, allowed Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi to undertake mining activities within the company's concession in 2024 without obtaining the mandatory written approval of the Minister responsible for mining, contrary to the Minerals and Mining Act.

An Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie Tay, on Monday, July 20, sentenced Chairman Wontumi to 20 years' imprisonment and imposed a fine of 10,000 penalty units, with an additional three-year custodial sentence in default of payment.

The NPP has described the prosecution as politically motivated and vowed to challenge the ruling through an appeal, arguing that the conviction was influenced by politics rather than the law.

Responding to the NPP's claims during an interview on Accra-based TV3, Dr. Srem Sai maintained that the court's decision was based largely on evidence presented by the defence itself, not the prosecution.

"Most of the pieces of evidence that the judge relied on came from their defence witnesses, the accused person's own comments, his own witness statement and his own police statement. Those were the materials that formed the basis for the conclusion of the judgment," he said.

The Deputy Attorney General also argued that the NPP's criticism of the ruling was politically driven, noting that the party held a press conference before obtaining a copy of the court's judgment.

"They had a press conference when they had not even seen the judgment. Do you expect them now that they've seen the judgment to go back and say what we said was wrong? They would never do that. They would rather double down, but so far I don't think anyone has pointed to any aspect of the judgment that they strongly believe is so erroneous," he added.