Video Evidence Admitted In Wontumi Trial While Defence Pokes Holes In State Case
Fresh developments in the ongoing criminal trial involving Akonta Mining Company Limited and its director, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, are increasingly drawing attention to what legal observers describe as significant technical and evidentiary hurdles confronting the prosecution.
An Accra High Court on Thursday admitted a pen drive containing video footage into evidence in the trial, overruling objections raised by the prosecution over the authenticity of the footage.
Presiding judge, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, ruled that concerns regarding the absence of timestamps and location verification could properly be addressed during cross-examination rather than serving as grounds to reject the evidence outright.
The footage, referenced in a witness statement by Kwabena Okyere Darko-Mensah, is said to relate to an inspection conducted at Akonta Mining’s Samreboi concession.
The court also admitted Darko-Mensah’s witness statement dated May 25, while rejecting a separate statement from Evans Adai after it was served late in court proceedings. The matter has been adjourned to June 1, 2026.
As the case progresses, the defence maintains that the prosecution’s narrative does not reflect the true legal issues before the court.
According to the defence, the matter is not one of classic illegal mining or unlawful occupation of land without concession rights, since the State itself acknowledges that the concession legally belongs to Akonta Mining Company Limited.
Rather, the central issue revolves around operational arrangements within an existing concession and whether such arrangements amount to an unlawful assignment of mineral rights under Ghana’s mining laws.
The defence points to the Minerals and Mining (Support Services) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2174), which expressly recognises the role of support service providers and contract mining services within mining operations.
Lawyers for Chairman Wontumi argue that operational participation or technical support within a legally acquired concession does not automatically amount to the transfer or assignment of mineral rights.
“The prosecution therefore bears the heavy burden of proving that there was an actual unlawful assignment or transfer of mineral rights, and not merely operational participation or support services within Akonta’s legally existing concession,” portions of a statement issued on behalf of the defence said.
The statement further questioned the evidentiary basis of the prosecution’s case, asking:
“Where is the assignment agreement allegedly transferring mineral rights? Where is the evidence that ownership or control of the concession changed from Akonta Mining? Where is the proof of deliberate criminal intent?”
The defence also insists that criminal liability cannot be founded on “assumptions, public sentiment, or political narratives,” but must instead be proven beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.
Chairman Wontumi’s legal team says it remains confident that the evidence before the court will ultimately demonstrate that no unlawful assignment of mineral rights or intentional criminal facilitation occurred.
The defence has also reaffirmed its respect for the judicial process and expressed confidence in the independence of the courts as proceedings continue.
Concerned citizen
Jackson Opoku
Accra
