Accra: Court orders Wontumi to open defence in Akonta Mining case

The Criminal Court 4 Division of the High Court has directed Bernard Antwi Boasiako, widely known as Wontumi, to begin presenting his defence in a case involving alleged illegal mining activities.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Audrey Kocuvie‑Tay after the court determined that the prosecution had produced sufficient evidence requiring the accused to respond.

Wontumi and his company, Akonta Mining Company Limited, are facing six charges. The charges accuse them of allowing two individuals—Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi—to carry out mining activities on the company’s concession without obtaining the required approval from the sector minister. They are also accused of facilitating unlicensed mining.

On Monday, March 16, 2026, the court ruled that under Section 7(4) of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, the prosecution had presented enough evidence after closing its case to require the accused persons to respond to the charges.

The court reminded Wontumi and his company of their legal rights. They may choose to remain silent, testify in their own defence, or call witnesses to support their case.

However, their lawyer, Andy Appiah‑Kubi, informed the court that the defence team intends to request the full written ruling before deciding their next steps. According to him, they will review the ruling carefully and consider possible options, including filing an appeal.

The prosecution opposed the request and instead suggested that the court briefly suspend proceedings to allow the defence lawyer to consult his client and decide how to proceed.

After hearing both sides, Justice Kocuvie-Tay adjourned the case to March 24. By that date, Wontumi is expected to inform the court of the course of action he intends to take.

During the trial, prosecutors called four witnesses to testify. After the prosecution closed its case, the defence filed a “submission of no case,” asking the court to acquit and discharge Wontumi and his company on the grounds that the evidence presented was insufficient.

Appiah-Kubi argued that the Office of the Attorney‑General of Ghana had failed to provide convincing evidence on key elements of the charges. He maintained that the prosecution’s case contained serious weaknesses, including gaps in proof and questionable reliability of some evidence.

Prosecutors rejected this claim. Led by the Deputy Attorney-General, they argued that the State had provided credible and legally admissible evidence covering all essential elements of the alleged offences. This included documents establishing the mineral rights involved, proof that ministerial approval had not been granted, and witness testimony describing mining operations, the use of machinery, and the extraction of gold on the concession.

According to the prosecution, this evidence was sufficient to require Wontumi to answer the charges before the court.