The Wontumi and Akonta Mining Judgment, Explained

This post is a factual summary of the judgment as delivered and does not constitute legal commentary or opinion

On 20 July 2026, the High Court in Accra, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie‑Tay, delivered a major judgment in the case of The Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako (popularly known as “Wontumi”) and Akonta Mining Company Limited.

What happened?

Akonta Mining Company Limited holds a mining lease at Samreboi in the Western Region. In April 2025, during an anti‑galamsey operation, the police arrested 29 men in and around Akonta’s concession. They were living in a structure bearing Akonta’s name. The police seized guns, ammunition, excavators, vehicles, water pumps, suspected gold and GH¢157,000.

Their supervisor, Michael Gyadu Ayisi, said they were working for a man called Henry Okum. He told the police they were mining on unmined parts of the concession and reclaiming previously mined areas by planting coconut trees. Okum later told the police that in September 2024 he made an arrangement with Wontumi. According to him, Wontumi allowed him to go onto Akonta’s concession to mine gold and to use part of the proceeds to fund land reclamation.

What does the law say?

Under section 14(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, a mining company cannot transfer, assign, mortgage or otherwise “deal with” its mineral right without the prior written approval of the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources. The court heard clear evidence from the Minerals Commission that no such approval was ever requested or granted for Okum’s activities.

The law also says that mine support services, such as land reclamation, can only be provided by people or companies who are properly registered and licensed. Okum admitted he is a small‑scale miner, not a licensed mine support service provider.

Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act makes it a crime to purposely aid or facilitate any act that breaks the Act where no specific penalty is given. The prosecution relied on this for the “purposely facilitating an unlicensed mining operation” counts.

What did the judge decide?

The court accepted that Akonta Mining is the formal holder of the mining lease. However, the evidence showed that the other director, Kwame Antwi, had been out of the country since 2021 or 2022 and had not been involved in the company’s affairs. There was no proof of a functioning board or proper corporate governance. All dealings with Okum were personal, informal and unwritten, and witnesses treated “Akonta Mining” and “Chairman Wontumi” as the same thing.

Because of this, the judge decided to “lift the corporate veil” and treat Wontumi as the true, de facto holder of the mineral right and the controlling mind of Akonta.

The key factual dispute was whether Wontumi allowed only reclamation or also mining. There was no written agreement, so the court relied on the surrounding circumstances. It noted that:

• Okum is a licensed small‑scale miner, not a reclamation contractor.

• Reclamation is expensive, yet Wontumi gave him no money for it.

• Okum said he paid for reclamation with proceeds from his own mining on the concession, and this was not challenged in court.

• He admitted extracting gold there and said the seized gold came from his operations.

• Wontumi helped him find an excavator supplier and used Akonta’s letterhead to seek support from the Western Regional Security Council (REGSEC) for the work.

The judge asked a simple question: why would a small‑scale miner agree to reclaim land deep in the forest at his own expense and for free if he was not also allowed to mine and earn income from that land? She found that the only reasonable explanation was that Wontumi permitted and expected him to mine on the concession and to use part of the proceeds to fund reclamation.

The court therefore held that:

• Allowing Okum and his workers to mine on Akonta’s concession without written ministerial approval was an unlawful “dealing” and “encumbrance” of the mineral right under section 14(1).

• Allowing an unlicensed person to carry out reclamation was a breach of section 59 on mine support services.

• By giving them access, helping with equipment and engaging REGSEC on their behalf, Wontumi and Akonta purposely facilitated these unlawful acts within the meaning of section 99(2)(b).

The judge rejected arguments that the mining law was too vague to be constitutional, that only formal written transfers are caught by section 14(1), and that company law shields directors from criminal liability in this context. She said the statutory wording is clear, Parliament deliberately used broad language to prevent hidden deals in mineral rights, and on the facts of this case Wontumi was effectively the mineral right holder.

The Outcome

The court convicted:

• Wontumi (1st accused):

  • Assignment of mineral rights without approval (Count 1)

  • Purposely facilitating an unlicensed mining operation (Count 4)

• Akonta Mining Company Limited (3rd accused):

  • Assignment of mineral rights without approval (Count 3)

  • Purposely facilitating an unlicensed mining operation (Count 6)

The second accused, Kwame Antwi, is at large and his case was not determined.

Sentencing and forfeiture

The judge acknowledged that Wontumi and Akonta were first‑time offenders, but stressed the gravity of illegal mining, its impact on the environment and the need for strong deterrence. She noted that the offences involved the illegal exploitation of mineral resources that belong to the State and undermined Ghana’s mining regulatory framework.

She sentenced Wontumi to 20 years’ imprisonment in hard labour on Count 1, plus a fine of 10,000 penalty units, with 3 years’ imprisonment in default. She imposed the same sentence on Count 4. The prison terms run concurrently, so his effective custodial sentence is 20 years.

Akonta Mining Company Limited was fined 15,000 penalty units on Count 3 and another 15,000 penalty units on Count 6.

Finally, under the Minerals and Mining Act, the court ordered that all items seized from Akonta’s concession, including excavators, weapons, vehicles, machinery, suspected gold and cash, are forfeited to the State. The Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources must deal with these forfeited items in line with the Act.

Gladstone Deklu, PhD

Management Consulting | Applied Research

Stay updated

© 2025. All rights reserved.