Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu says the conviction of NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, was the result of the weakness of his own defence rather than any legal technicality.
Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express, Kpebu described Wontumi’s claim that he only authorised reclamation work on the Samreboi mining concession as a “cock-and-bull story” that failed to stand up to the evidence presented in court.
His comments follow the High Court’s decision to convict Wontumi on illegal mining-related offences and sentence him to 20 years’ imprisonment over activities on the Samreboi concession.
According to Kpebu, Akonta Mining, the company linked to Wontumi, was the legally recognised concession holder, making him ultimately responsible for activities carried out on the site.
“The key thing is, as they mine, Akonta Mining is the company that has been given authority, and Wontumi is the directing mind of the company. So if you give out the concession and you are not monitoring, and the person is mining, you gave it,” he said.
He argued that Wontumi had effectively admitted to breaching the law by allowing another individual, Henry Okum, to operate on the concession without the required approval from the Minister responsible for mining.
“I remember that giving it out was contrary to the rules. You don’t give out without the permission of the minister. So he’s already committed a crime by allowing Henry Okum, who testified, to be there without supervision. And at that point, he admits that he did so without authorisation, so he nailed himself,” Kpebu stated.
Kpebu also rejected arguments that the lack of written authorisation undermined the prosecution’s case.
“So that afterthought statement that, oh, but he didn’t put it in writing, so it is called authorisation, is farcical,” he said.
Citing principles of property law, he maintained that oral agreements can be legally binding.
“Generally, there’s this popular saying in property law class that an agreement for a lease, an oral agreement, is as good as a written one. But if you make an agreement orally, ‘Henry, take this concession, do whatever you want to do,’ it is binding.”
He added that a lack of written documentation could not absolve someone of responsibility.
“You cannot later say, ‘Oh, but I didn’t write it down.’ Can you imagine if we were to say that for anything a man says, if he doesn’t write it down, he’s not bound? Can you imagine the fraud we would be encouraging? You hear his lawyers making that argument, now even making a fool of the whole case he permitted it.”
Kpebu further dismissed suggestions that evidence of reclamation work contradicted the prosecution’s case.
“Don’t forget, seeing a bit of reclamation is not inconsistent with what Henry said. Henry said Wontumi gave him permission to mine for gold and also to use part of the proceeds to reclaim. Henry hasn’t contradicted himself,” he said.
He noted that the trial judge did not reject Henry Okum’s testimony as unreliable.
“The judge did not say that based on the cross-examination, Henry is not believable. Henry is not creditworthy, so Henry’s evidence is unreliable.”
Instead, Kpebu argued that it was Wontumi’s own explanation that failed to withstand scrutiny.
“Wontumi is saying that he only asked Henry to go and do reclamation. But unfortunately for Wontumi, he didn’t pay, and reclamation is expensive.”
He said the defence’s explanation that reclamation costs would eventually be recovered through coconut farming only further weakened Wontumi’s case.
“Part of Wontumi’s story is that Henry, as part of the reclamation, was to plant coconut trees, and when these coconut trees grow, they will share the profits at the end. Can you imagine this cock-and-bull story? It didn’t jive. So those are the things that gave Wontumi away. The story didn’t jive.”
Also read:
