The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, aka Chairman Wontumi, has reportedly filed an appeal challenging his recent conviction and 20-year sentence in the illegal transfer of a mining licence case.

Excerpts of the notice of appeal, which was reportedly filed by Wontumi's lead counsel, Samuel Atta Akyea, and sighted by GhanaWeb, showed that both Wontumi, the first accused in the case, and his company, Akonta Mining Company Limited, the third accused in the case, are challenging the court's ruling.

It was stated in the notice that the two applicants were dissatisfied with the judgement of the trial judge, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay.

“Take Notice that the 1st and 3rd Accused persons/Appellants ("Appellants") herein, who are dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court (Criminal Division '4'), Accra, presided over by Her Ladyship Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, J., dated the 20th day of July 2026, do hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 hereof and will, at the hearing of the appeal, seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4. And the 1st and 3rd Appellants further state that the names and addresses of the persons directly affected by the appeal are set out in paragraph 6,” part of the court document, which was dated July 28, 2026, read.

The lawyers for Wontumi raised 20 grounds of appeal, including their claim that the judgement was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence on record.

They also argued that the judge did not properly apply the mining law, adding that she also usurped the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

“GROUNDS OF APPEAL

a. The convictions are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.

b. The learned trial judge did not read the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended, as a whole. The combined effect of sections 13(8) and 46 of the said Act is exculpatory of the 1st and 3rd Appellants and consistent with their innocence.

c. The learned trial Judge usurped the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in flagrant contravention of Article 130(1)(a) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution in interpreting Article 19 of the Constitution against sections 14(1), 59 and 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended, and section 3 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2019 (Act 995), as clear, when both parties have rival meanings of the words ‘unless the offence is defined.... in a written law’,” the document further stated.

More soon...