A recent response from the Minerals Commission to a Right to Information (RTI) request has brought renewed attention to one of the key legal issues surrounding the conviction of former Ashanti Regional New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi.
The Commission, in a letter dated August 20, 2026, reportedly clarified that the engagement of mine-support-service providers for contract mining does not, by itself, amount to an assignment of mineral rights.
The disclosure could become significant in Wontumi’s ongoing appeal, particularly because one of the charges against him relates to the alleged assignment of a mineral right to a third party without the required ministerial approval.
Wontumi was convicted by the High Court on July 20, 2026, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. His legal team has since filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence.
RTI request triggers clarification
The latest development followed an RTI request submitted by mining consultant Ing. Wisdom Edem Gomashie, who served as a defence witness during Wontumi’s trial.
In his August 6 request to the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources and the Minerals Commission, Ing. Gomashie sought copies of deeds of assignment involving 11 major mining companies and the mine-support-service providers undertaking contract mining activities on their behalf.
The companies listed included Gold Fields Ghana, Newmont Ghana, AngloGold Ashanti, Perseus Mining and Asanko Gold Mine.
The Ministry subsequently forwarded the request to the Minerals Commission for a response.
In its August 20 reply, signed by Acting Chief Executive Officer Isaac Tandoh, the Commission stated that it had no records of deeds of assignment between mineral right holders and their support-service providers.
Commission draws legal distinction
The Commission further explained that Section 14 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), which regulates the assignment of mineral rights, is distinct from arrangements involving contract mining and mine-support services.
It referred to Section 59 of Act 703 and the Minerals and Mining (Support Services) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2174), under which companies can register as mine-support-service providers and provide specialised services to holders of mineral rights.
According to the Commission’s clarification, engaging a support-service provider does not automatically transfer or assign the mineral right held by a mining company.
An assignment of a mineral right, the Commission noted, is subject to the statutory requirement for the prior written approval of the Minister under Section 14 of Act 703.
Potential implications for Wontumi appeal
The clarification has sparked renewed debate over how the law applies to the circumstances surrounding Wontumi’s case.
A central question for the appeal could be whether the arrangement involving Henry Okum constituted an assignment of a mineral right, as alleged by the prosecution, or a contractual engagement to provide mining-related services.
The Minerals Commission’s response does not itself determine whether Wontumi committed the offence for which he was convicted. However, its distinction between an assignment of mineral rights and the engagement of a support-service provider could become a point of contention before the appellate court.
The response has therefore added a new layer to the legal arguments expected to be advanced by Wontumi’s lawyers as they challenge his conviction and 20-year sentence.
Bail bid may follow
With the legal vacation expected to end in October, attention is now turning to the next steps in the appeal process.
Reports indicate that Wontumi’s legal team is also considering an application for bail pending the determination of the appeal.
The latest Minerals Commission disclosure is consequently expected to feature prominently in the legal debate, as the appellate process determines whether the evidence and interpretation of the relevant provisions of Act 703 were sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
