Former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s legislative reforms aimed at making illegal mining, popularly known as galamsey, a costly criminal enterprise have resulted in their first major high-profile conviction, with the imprisonment of New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, alias “Chairman Wontumi”.
An Accra High Court last Monday sentenced Boasiako to 20 years’ imprisonment with hard labour on each of two counts after finding him guilty in the Akonta Mining illegal mining case. The sentences are to run concurrently. His brother and another
His company, Akonta Mining Limited, was also convicted on two counts and fined 15,000 penalty units on each count, while Boasiako was additionally fined 10,000 penalty units for each offense in what has become known as the Samreboi illegal mining case.
The convictions were secured under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995), legislation introduced by the Akufo-Addo administration to impose significantly harsher penalties on illegal mining and related offenses.
The court heard that Wontumi and Kwame Antwi are shareholders and directors of Akonta Mining, incorporated in 2010 with mining and exploration as its core business. On April 16, 2025, during an anti-galamsey operation in the Western Region, police arrested Michael Gyedu Ayisi and 28 others at a mining site within Akonta Mining’s concession at Samreboi.
The arrested individuals were occupying a structure bearing Akonta Mining’s name, and police recovered firearms, ammunition, suspected gold, excavators, vehicles, and over GH¢157,000 in cash from the scene.
Under interrogation, Ayisi named Henry Okum as his employer. Okum told police he had reached an arrangement with Wontumi in September 2024 to mine gold on the unmined portions of the concession while reclaiming previously mined portions by planting coconut seedlings.
Okum said Wontumi did not provide funds for the reclamation work, expecting him instead to finance it from proceeds of his mining activities on the concession, an arrangement Okum said Wontumi was fully aware of.
The amendment, introduced in Parliament by the then Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Gloria Akuffo, and assented to by President Akufo-Addo on August 19, 2019, substantially strengthened Ghana’s anti-galamsey legal regime.
Among the key reforms, the amended law increased prison terms for persons engaged in illegal mining from relatively modest sanctions to custodial sentences ranging between 15 and 25 years, together with hefty fines.
The legislation also criminalized a wide range of activities associated with illegal mining, including facilitating unlawful mining operations, assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval, engaging non-Ghanaians in prohibited mining activities, and manufacturing or using floating platforms, popularly known as changfan, for mining in rivers and other water bodies.
In addition, the law provides for the confiscation and forfeiture to the State of excavators and other equipment used in illegal mining operations, regardless of ownership.
The conviction marks a significant political contrast with events during Akufo-Addo’s presidency.
Although the former President repeatedly declared that he was prepared to put his presidency on the line to combat illegal mining, his administration did not successfully prosecute anyone under the amended legislation.
At the height of public controversy over Akonta Mining’s activities, Akufo-Addo publicly defended both Chairman Wontumi and his company, insisting they were not engaged in illegal mining despite reports by sections of the media and findings attributed to the Minerals Commission linking the company to unlawful mining operations.
Monday’s High Court judgment, however, reached a markedly different conclusion after a full criminal trial.
Before delivering judgment, the trial judge, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, dismissed a last-minute application by the defense seeking to postpone judgment and refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court.
The defense argued that constitutional issues raised in its written submissions required interpretation by the apex court.
The judge rejected the application, holding that Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act was clear and unambiguous and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in R v. Mainkankan, Justice Kocuvie-Tay ruled that constitutional referrals were only appropriate where genuine ambiguity existed.
“The issue raised by counsel is that Parliament ought to have legislated differently. That is not a matter for constitutional interpretation,” the court held.
On the counts relating to the unlawful assignment of mineral rights, the court found that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Akonta Mining transferred or otherwise dealt with its mineral rights without obtaining the mandatory approval of the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay observed that the absence of ministerial approval was never disputed during the trial.
Evidence from the Minerals Commission outlined the statutory approval process, while the accused themselves admitted that no such approval had been obtained.
“The allegation was never contested. The accused admitted that no ministerial approval was received,” the judge stated.
The court also rejected the defense’s claim that Henry Okum had merely been contracted to reclaim degraded portions of the concession.
Instead, the judge accepted Okum’s testimony that he had been permitted to undertake mining activities on portions of the concession and use the proceeds to finance reclamation works.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay described Wontumi’s explanation that Okum would eventually recover his investment through future coconut farming as “an afterthought”.
Although recognizing the principle that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, the court held that the facts justified lifting Akonta Mining’s corporate veil.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay found that the company did not function through an effective board of directors and that Wontumi exercised complete operational control over its mining activities.
The court therefore held him personally liable for offenses committed through the company.
The court also found both Wontumi and Akonta Mining guilty of purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay held that the accused permitted Henry Okum to access the concession and undertake mining operations without complying with the approvals required under the Minerals and Mining Act.
Evidence accepted by the court further showed that Wontumi introduced Okum to a person who assisted him in obtaining an excavator used in the mining operations.
The defense maintained that the arrangement related solely to land reclamation, but the court ruled that the evidence demonstrated that mining activities had in fact been authorized.
The High Court convicted Bernard Antwi Boasiako on Count One for assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval and on Count Four for purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
Akonta Mining Limited was convicted on Count Three for assigning mineral rights without ministerial approval and on Count Six for purposefully facilitating unlawful mining activities.
Boasiako was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with hard labour on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently, and fined 10,000 penalty units on each count.
Akonta Mining Limited was fined 15,000 penalty units on each of its two convictions.
The judgment marks the first major conviction secured under the strengthened penalties introduced by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019. It signals the practical enforcement of legislation enacted to deter illegal mining through lengthy custodial sentences, substantial financial penalties, and the forfeiture of equipment used in unlawful mining activities and environmental destruction.
