Director of Communications for the United Party (UP), Solomon Owusu, has taken a swipe on claims by the Minority and the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), that Wontumi’s trial was politically tainted.
He says the trial judge was “spot on” with her verdict, having gone through the entire judgement delivered in the court on Monday, July 20, 2026.
“I have gone through this 59-page judgement and I dare say that the judge was spot on, whichever way you look at it,” he said on the BigIssue segment on the NewDay morning show on TV3 Wednesday, July 22, 2026.
According to him, the NPP’s decision to appeal the matter will hit a snag, critically considering the substance and the judgement delivered. The former member of the New Patriotic Party said it would only take a presidential pardon for Wontumi to regain his freedom, rather than an appeal.
“In fact, it will be extremely difficult, unless a pardon, for any judge worth a sort to overturn this judgement,” he noted.
Solomon Owusu’s comments follow the NPP leadership’s decision to appeal the sentence given to its Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, also known as Chairman Wontumi.
Wontumi was found guilty, got convicted and sentenced by the Accra High Court in a trial in which he and his company, Akonta Mining Limited, were found guilty on six counts relating to the assignment of mineral rights without ministerial approval and facilitating an unlicensed mining operation.
That was after the court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, held that the prosecution had proved its case that Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining permitted Henry Okoom and Michael Gyedu Ayisi to undertake mining activities on the company’s concession without securing the prior approval of the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, and thereby facilitated illegal mining on the land.
In addition to the jail term, Chairman Wontumi will pay GH¢120,000, in default of which he will serve three years in prison.
His company, however, will pay GH¢180,000 on two counts.
Relying largely on circumstantial evidence, the court was of the view that the absence of ministerial approval was never contested by the defence, describing the admission as implicit since no application for approval had been been made by the company.
Chairman Wontumi had told the court he had granted Henry Okoom permission only to reclaim land by planting coconut, and not to mine.
He said he did not know Okoom was a small-scale miner, maintaining that Okoom had presented himself as a mine support service provider.
The court, however, held that this explanation could not stand.
It added that Chairman Wontumi led no evidence to verify Okoom’s claimed reclamation experience, and that Okoom, in unchallenged testimony, told the court he mined on unmined portions of the concession to recover costs after Chairman Wontumi failed to give him money for the reclamation work.
Relying on the principles of circumstantial evidence set out in Duah v The Republic [1987-88] 1 GLR 343, the court found that no reasonable explanation existed to rival the conclusion that Chairman Wontumi had knowingly permitted Okoom to mine.
It dismissed as an afterthought Chairman Wontumi’s later explanation that he expected Okoom to recover his costs from the eventual sale of matured coconuts.
Citing the exceptions in the seminal case of Morkor v Kuma, the court lifted Akonta Mining’s corporate veil, finding no functioning management or executive board within the company.
It held that Chairman Wontumi was the true de facto holder of the mineral right and the sole controlling mind of the company during the period the offences were committed.
“The A3’s corporate veil should be lifted as there is no real difference between the two (Chairman Wontumi and Akonta) in relation to dealing with the persons permitted to mine.
“There was no functioning management board and executive management board to deal as a company. All acts were done by Chairman Wontumi, the true de facto holder of the mineral right,” the judge said.
Several lawyers took turns to pray for mitigation and urged the court to impose the minimum sentence.
Meanwhile, the leadership of the NPP has announced its intentions to appeal the ruling, describing their Chairman’s sentencing as politically motivated.
