Why Otumfuo Must Not Request Any Presidential Pardon For Bosiako Wontumi

Following the 20‑year prison sentence handed to Bernard Antwi‑Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, Ghana’s political atmosphere has become charged with tension and controversy. Many NPP politicians and party loyalists have reacted aggressively to the ruling, with some verbally attacking the government and others threatening to force Wontumi’s release.

Their actions have angered a large section of the public, especially Ghanaians who are exhausted by years of corruption, impunity, and political interference in justice. After eight years of scandals under the Akufo‑Addo–Bawumia administration, citizens are demanding accountability, not another political rescue mission for a convicted offender.

Even though Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II has not made any public attempt to request a pardon for Wontumi, past experiences compel this warning. Ghana’s political history shows that powerful individuals often escape justice through influence, connections, or traditional authority.

When a former Ghana Airports Company Board Chairman was arrested by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for corruption, he later claimed that Manhyia intervened to secure his release. Whether true or exaggerated, the perception alone was damaging. It suggested that traditional authorities could override the justice system and that powerful individuals could avoid accountability.

This is precisely why any attempt by Otumfuo or Manhyia to intervene in Wontumi’s case would be dangerous for Ghana’s democracy. To understand the gravity of the situation, it is important to establish why Wontumi was jailed. According to multiple authoritative reports, he was convicted for serious illegal mining offenses.

He was found guilty of allowing unlicensed miners to operate inside a forest reserve near Samreboi, assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval, and facilitating illegal mining activities on Akonta Mining’s concession. His defence that the miners were reclaiming land for coconut planting was rejected by the court as false.

The judge ruled that Wontumi had breached Ghana’s Minerals and Mining Act, which carries sentences of 15 to 25 years for such defenses. His conviction was therefore not political persecution, but a criminal judgment based on evidence, delivered after years of illegal mining destroying rivers, forests, and communitpersecution butountry.

Ghanaians are furious at any idea of pardoning Wontumi because illegal mining has devastated the nation. Water bodies have been polluted, farmlands destroyed, and entire communities poisoned by chemicals used in galamsey operations. For years, politicians protected galamsey kingpins, creating a culture of impunity that allowed environmental destruction to flourish.

The public wants a new era of accountability, not a return to political interference. A pardon would send a dangerous message that powerful criminals never face consequences, and that justice only applies to the poor and powerless. If Otumfuo inteconsequences andquences would be severe. First, it would undermine Ghana’s justice system by suggesting that traditional authority can override the courts.

This would weaken the rule of law and damage the credibility of the judiciary. Second, it would harm Otumfuo’s own reputation. He is widely respected for promoting peace, development, and discipline. Intervening for a convicted illegal miner would contradict his public stance against galamsey and raise questions about fairness and consistency.

Third, it would fuel political propaganda. The NPP could easily weaponize the intervention to claim that Wontumi was released because the NDC is corrupt, creating a narrative that would haunt the government for years. Most importantly, a pardon would destroy public trust in President Mahama’s anti‑corruption promise.

Mahama campaigned on restoring accountability and rebuilding institutions damaged by the previous administration. If he pardons Wontumi, Ghanaians will feel betrayed. They will conclude that the government is no different from the Akufo‑Addo administration, which protected its own allies regardless of wrongdoing. This perception would severely damage the NDC’s credibility and weaken voter confidence ahead of the 2028 elections.

The opposition would use the pardon as evidence that the NDC protects corruption, making it difficult for the government to defend its record. International comparisons make the issue even clearer. In the United States and the United Kingdom, corrupt politicians are jailed without royal or presidential intervention. King Charles has never requested a pardon for any convicted political figure.

The justice system is allowed to function independently, and political influence does not override criminal convictions. Ghana must follow the same principle if it wants to rebuild trust, strengthen democracy, and protect national resources. In conclusion, any attempt to secure a pardon for Wontumi, whether from Otumfuo, political actors, or influential individuals, would be a national mistake.

It would undermine the fight against corruption, damage Mahama’s credibility, betray Ghanaians who voted for accountability, and create political backlash that will haunt the government in 2028.

   Comments0