Lead counsel for the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, says the defence team has identified more than 20 grounds on which it intends to challenge his client’s conviction at the Court of Appeal.
Samuel Atta Akyea said the appeal will focus on what he described as fundamental constitutional and legal errors that undermined the High Court proceedings.
Speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on Tuesday, July 21, Mr. Atta Akyea disclosed that one of the principal issues to be raised is the trial judge’s refusal to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court before delivering judgement.
“So far we’ve assembled no less than 20 grounds of appeal. The first one is a constitutional imperative that Her Ladyship was bound to make a reference to the Supreme Court for the determination of critical issues,” he said.
His comments come after the Minority in Parliament criticised the judgement against Chairman Wontumi, describing it as flawed and questioning the legal basis of the conviction.
According to Mr. Atta Akyea, the case raised constitutional questions under Articles 130 and 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, as well as provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, which he argued fall within the exclusive interpretative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
He maintained that the defence and the Attorney General presented competing interpretations of the Constitution during the trial, making it mandatory for the High Court to refer the matter to the apex court.
Citing the Akosah case as precedent, Mr. Atta Akyea argued that where parties advance rival interpretations of constitutional provisions, the issues must be determined by the Supreme Court.
“Even the very authority that she cited in the judgement is aware rival meanings are placed on the Constitution by the parties. We said the manner of the charges and the way they were couched offended Article 19(11), and therefore the Supreme Court should interpret it. The Attorney General said no,” he stated.
He argued that the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction by determining the constitutional questions herself instead of referring them to the Supreme Court.
“The court graduated itself into the Supreme Court to make a determination of constitutional matters. For me, that is a very fundamental error which can quash the entire decision because the power to interpret the Constitution is not vested in a High Court judge; it is with the Supreme Court,” he said.
Mr. Atta Akyea further contended that the charges against Chairman Wontumi failed to meet the constitutional requirement that criminal offences and their corresponding penalties be clearly defined.
“It was not a question of statutory construction. It was a constitutional interpretation as to whether the offence, as formulated, met the requirements of Article 19(11), which says a person cannot be convicted unless the offence and its penalty are clearly defined,” he explained.
The former Abuakwa South MP described the judge’s refusal to refer the constitutional issues as a serious error that, in his view, compromised the entire trial.
“I believe it’s a very serious matter that the judge ignored. It seems to me that the judge was in an ambulance mood to convict the guy. I do not see how any High Court judge will ignore serious and consequential constitutional interpretation and go ahead with the matter,” he said.
Mr. Atta Akyea expressed confidence that the Court of Appeal would give due consideration to the constitutional and procedural issues raised by the defence in determining whether the conviction should stand.
READ ALSO:
Three injured after timber logs crush vehicles on Oforikrom road
Minority MPs wear black in Parliament to protest Wontumi’s conviction
