Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, and Akonta Mining Company Limitedhave officially filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the judgment delivered by the High Court in the criminal case against them.

The appeal, filed at the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, Accra, challenges the entire judgment delivered by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay on 20 July 2026.

In their Notice of Appeal, the appellants argue that the convictions are unreasonable and unsupported by the evidencepresented during the trial. They further contend that the trial judge misinterpreted the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended, insisting that the proper interpretation of the law supports their innocence.

The appeal also alleges that the High Court exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction by interpreting provisions of the Constitution and the Minerals and Mining Act in a manner that, according to the appellants, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The case lists The Republic as the respondent, with Bernard Antwi-Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi) as the 1st appellant, Kwame Antwi, who remains at large, as the 2nd accused, and Akonta Mining Company Limited as the 3rd appellant.

The Court of Appeal is expected to determine whether the High Court’s convictions and sentences should be upheld, varied, or set aside after hearing arguments from both the appellants and the prosecution.

Lead counsel for Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, Samuel Atta Akyea, Esq., has formally filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, challenging both the conviction and sentence imposed on his client by the High Court.

The appeal, lodged earlier today, sets out more than 20 grounds upon which the appellants are asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment. According to the Notice of Appeal, the defence argues that the conviction is legally flawed, unsupported by the evidence presented during the trial, and based on errors in both law and fact.

Among the principal grounds of appeal are:

1. Unreasonable Conviction: The defence argues that the conviction is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence presented before the trial court.
2. Misinterpretation of Mining Laws: Counsel contends that the trial judge misconstrued key provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act relating to mineral rights and mining operations, leading to an erroneous decision.
3. Constitutional Jurisdiction: The appeal alleges that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by determining constitutional questions that fall exclusively within the mandate of the Supreme Court.
4. Credibility of Prosecution Witness: The defence challenges the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of Prosecution Witness Two (PW2), describing the witness as a self-confessed illegal miner and participant in the alleged enterprise whose evidence should not have been accorded significant weight.
5. Circumstantial Evidence: Counsel argues that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution did not irresistibly point to the guilt of the appellants and that there were reasonable alternative explanations which the court failed to consider.
6. Lack of Criminal Intent: The appeal further contends that the prosecution failed to establish the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to sustain the offences for which the appellants were convicted.
7. Corporate Veil: The defence argues that the trial court’s decision to lift the corporate veil in order to convict Akonta Mining Company Limited, the third appellant, is legally unsustainable.
8. Exculpatory Evidence: Counsel maintains that evidence favourable to the defence was either disregarded or not given sufficient consideration by the trial court.
9. Severity of Sentence: The appeal also challenges the sentences imposed, describing them as inordinately harsh and excessive in the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal will now consider the grounds advanced by the appellants alongside the prosecution’s response before determining whether the convictions and sentences should be upheld, varied, or set aside.