Attorney General opposes Wontumi’s bail application pending appeal in 20-year sentence

The Attorney General has opposed an application by New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, for bail pending his appeal against his 20-year prison sentence.

In a 13-paragraph affidavit filed on Tuesday, August 11, the Attorney General argued that Wontumi’s appeal does not disclose a reasonable chance of success and that there are no special circumstances to justify granting him bail.

The application is expected to be heard by the High Court on Wednesday, August 19.

“That at the hearing of this motion, the Attorney-General shall seek the leave of this honourable Court to refer to all the processes which are filed in this matter as if such processes are duly exhibited to this affidavit,” the State Attorney, Priscilla Lartey, stated in the affidavit.

The Attorney General further stated that, except for facts expressly admitted in the affidavit, the State denies the allegations contained in Wontumi’s application for bail pending appeal.

“That the Attorney-General is opposed to the prayer of the Appellant/Applicant for bail pending appeal,” the affidavit stated.

Wontumi was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with hard labour by the Accra High Court on July 20, after he was found guilty of offences relating to illegal mining activities at the Samreboi concession in the Western Region.

The court found him and Akonta Mining Company Limited guilty of offences including assigning mineral rights without the required ministerial approval and purposely facilitating unlicensed mining operations.

The court also imposed financial penalties on Wontumi and Akonta Mining Company, with the custodial and default sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Meanwhile, Chairman Wontumi, through his lawyers, contends that, on the face of the record, the entire trial was wrong in law.

The motion for bail says the appeal raised genuine and substantial constitutional interpretation questions regarding Article 19(1) of the Constitution and the constitutionality of Sections 14(1), 59 and 99(2) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as penal legislation, of which the trial judge allegedly usurped the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in violation of Article 132(2) of the Constitution.