Just days before the Accra High Court was expected to deliver judgment in the high-profile Samreboi illegal mining case, lawyers for New Patriotic Par
Just days before the Accra High Court was expected to deliver judgment in the high-profile Samreboi illegal mining case, lawyers for New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, have launched a dramatic constitutional challenge that could halt the proceedings and potentially reshape the legal foundation of the prosecution’s case.
Lead defence counsel, former Abuakwa South Member of Parliament Samuel Atta Akyea, has filed a Motion for Deferment of Judgment, asking the trial court to suspend the delivery of its verdict and instead refer crucial constitutional questions to the Supreme Court.
The application, filed on July 16, comes just four days before the High Court was scheduled to pronounce judgment on July 20, 2026, in the criminal case involving Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited.
The latest legal strategy represents a significant shift in the defence’s approach, moving the focus away from the factual allegations surrounding the Samreboi mining concession to the constitutionality of the very laws under which the Attorney-General has prosecuted the NPP stalwart and his company.
According to Mr. Atta Akyea, the prosecution’s case is built on statutory provisions that are constitutionally defective.
He argues that Sections 14(1) and 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended, are vague, overly broad and inconsistent with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees every accused person the right to a fair trial and requires criminal offences to be clearly defined by law.
The defence maintains that because these provisions form the legal basis of several charges against Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited, the High Court should not proceed to judgment until the apex court determines whether those sections are constitutionally valid.
If the trial court agrees with the defence’s application, it would first have to refer the constitutional questions to the Supreme Court for authoritative interpretation before continuing with the criminal proceedings. That process would inevitably delay the scheduled judgment while the constitutional issues are determined.
The High Court is therefore expected to devote Monday’s proceedings to hearing oral submissions from both sides.
Mr. Atta Akyea will argue why the constitutional questions deserve referral to the Supreme Court, while lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Department are expected to oppose the application and urge the court to proceed with the long-awaited judgment.
Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited are standing trial over allegations that they unlawfully permitted two individuals—Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi—to undertake mining activities on the company’s concession at Samreboi in the Western Region without obtaining prior approval from the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources, contrary to the mining laws.
The Attorney-General has charged the accused persons with multiple offences, including assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval and facilitating unlicensed mining operations. Chairman Wontumi has consistently denied all allegations and has maintained his not-guilty plea throughout the trial.
The case has witnessed several dramatic twists since proceedings began. During the prosecution’s case, one of its principal witnesses admitted under cross-examination that he possessed no documentary evidence proving that Chairman Wontumi had assigned the Samreboi concession to Henry Okum. The defence also mounted vigorous challenges to the prosecution’s evidence before closing its case.
Another major development occurred when former lead counsel Andy Appiah-Kubi sought to withdraw from representing Chairman Wontumi.
Following legal arguments over the withdrawal process, Samuel Atta Akyea was appointed as the new lead defence counsel. Subsequently, he secured additional time from the High Court to review the extensive trial record and prepare the defence’s final written address, resulting in the postponement of the original judgment date.
The latest constitutional application now presents yet another hurdle before the trial court. If the judge determines that the issues raised involve substantial questions concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the matter could be transferred to the Supreme Court before any verdict is delivered.
If the application is dismissed, however, the court could proceed with judgment after disposing of the constitutional objections.
The Attorney-General’s Office continues to insist that the prosecution has established its case under the mining laws and is expected to resist any further delay in the proceedings.
COMMENTS