Wontumi, Akonta mining slapped with 6 costs over alleged breaches of mining regulation – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

In a significant escalation of Ghana’s efforts to combat illegal mining, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, known as “Wontumi”—the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP)—and Akonta Mining Company Limited have been formally charged with six serious criminal offenses under Ghana’s mining laws. Authorities allege that the accused facilitated unauthorized mining activities in the Western Region’s Samreboi area, sparking renewed scrutiny over corporate and individual accountability in natural resource management.

The case, filed by the Office of the Attorney General, highlights the government’s aggressive stance on enforcing the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703) and its 2019 amendment. These charges not only threaten to reshape the regulatory landscape for mining operations but also underscore the growing political and legal risks for those implicated in unauthorized mineral exploitation.

The Role of the Ashanti Regional NPP Chairman

Wontumi, a prominent political figure in Ghana’s opposition party, now faces allegations that could stall his public career. The charges hinge on his purported role in enabling unlicensed mining operations by two individuals, Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi, on Akonta Mining’s concession.

Analysis

The six-count indictment centers on violations of Ghana’s Minerals and Mining Act, particularly Section 14(1), which prohibits the assignment of mineral rights without ministerial authorization, and Section 99(2)(b), which criminalizes the facilitation of unlicensed mining. Each charge details specific breaches, reflecting a meticulous breakdown of how alleged actors enabled galamsey operations on structured mining goals.

Key Legal Provisions Under Scrutiny

• Section 14(1): Defines mineral rights allocation, requiring prior approval from the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources. Since 2019 amendments, violations carry harsher penalties to curb galamsey.
• Section 99(2)(b): Penalizes intentional aid to unlicensed miners, regardless of ownership status. This broadens accountability to corporate leaders and collaborators.

Impact on Industry Practices

This case may set a precedent for stricter enforcement of mining licenses, particularly for political figures and corporate entities. Experts note that prosecuting public officials like Wontumi signals the state’s commitment to dismantling networks that exploit loopholes in resource governance.

Summary

Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Wontumi), Akonta Mining Company, and director Kwame Antwi face six criminal charges for alleged unauthorized mining facilitation in Samreboi. The Office of the Attorney General cites Sections 14(1) and 99(2)(b) of Ghana’s mining laws, with ongoing investigations into corporate accountability and political influence in resource management.

Key Points

Practical Advice

Ensuring Compliance with Mining Laws

To mitigate legal risks, mining companies and individuals should:

• Engage legal experts to audit licensing agreements.
• Document all mineral rights transactions with ministerial signatures.
• Train staff on Section 99(2)(b) obligations to avoid claims of intentional facilitation.

Navigating Corporate Accountability

Directors must implement internal audits to verify subcontractor compliance. The Akonta case illustrates how corporate boards can be held liable for indirect participation in violations.

Points of Caution

Political Liability Risks

Public officials, including party leaders like Wontumi, now face heightened scrutiny. Political involvement in commercial mining ventures could lead to disqualification from office or expulsion from ruling parties.

Reputation Damage

Organizations linked to galamsey activity often face international sanctions and local community distrust, eroding long-term profitability.

Comparison

Individual vs. Corporate Responsibility

While Wontumi and Kwame Antwi are charged individually, Akonta Mining’s corporate charge emphasizes the state’s strategy of targeting organizational actors. This dual approach ensures that both leadership and shareholders (e.g., shareholders of Akonta Mining) face consequences.

Historical Context

Compared to 2021 rulings on galamsey taskforce arrests, this case employs newer amendments from Act 995, reflecting the government’s evolving legal toolkit against illegal mining syndicates.

Legal Implications

If convicted, Akonta Mining could face asset freezes, operational suspensions, and fines up to 3% of annual revenues under Section 99(2)(b). Politically, Wontumi’s prosecution may compel other NPP leaders to divest from mining ventures. Long-term, these cases could reduce ghost mining licenses and discourage unauthorized partnerships with foreign entities.

Precedent for Future Litigation

Courts may use this case to clarify ambiguities in “indirect facilitation” (Section 99(2)(b)), potentially expanding liabilities to mid-level executives in large corporations.

Conclusion

The charges against Wontumi and Akonta Mining represent a watershed moment in Ghana’s fight against galamsey. By leveraging updated mining laws, prosecutors are reshaping accountability norms, but the case also raises questions about the balance between resource security and political reform.

FAQ