Convicted Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has through his lawyers filed an application for bail pending appeal.
Chairman Wontumi was on July 20, 2026, convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment after he was found guilty of assigning Akonta Mining’s mineral concessions to a third party without prior approval from the Minister.
In addition to the custodial sentence, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay imposed a fine of GH¢120,000 on him and GH¢180,000 on the company, totalling GH¢300,000.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Wontumi, through his lawyers led by Samuel Atta Akyea, has taken steps to appeal against both the conviction and the sentence.
While waiting for the appeal, his lawyers filed an application at the High Court on August 6, 2026, for bail pending appeal. The application has been fixed for hearing on August 19, 2026.
“Take Notice that this Honourable Court will be moved by Counsel for and on behalf of the 1st Appellant/Applicant herein praying the Court for an order that the Applicant, who is currently incarcerated at the Nsawam Medium Security Prison, be admitted to bail pending appeal upon the grounds stated in the accompanying affidavit and for any further orders as this Honourable Court may deem meet,” the application for bail pending appeal filed by Wontumi stated.
Affidavit in Support
Per the affidavit in support of the application, the lawyers stated that dissatisfied with both the conviction and sentence, “the Applicant and the 3rd Appellant caused their lawyer to lodge an appeal against the judgment.”
“It is apparent on the face of the record that the whole trial was wrong in law and the appeal raises substantial, serious and arguable questions of law and fact with overwhelming prospects of success.
“The conviction proceeded upon grave errors of law which substantially affected the outcome of the trial and the appeal discloses several exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of this Honourable Court’s discretion in favour of the Applicant,” the affidavit stated.
It further argued that “the appeal raises genuine and substantial constitutional interpretation questions regarding Article 19 of the Constitution and the constitutionality of Sections 14, 59 and 99 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 [Act 703] as penal legislation, of which the learned trial judge usurped the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in flagrant violation of Article 130 of the Constitution, 1992.”
According to the lawyers, the appeal challenges the trial judge’s decision which failed to read the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 [Act 703], as amended, as a whole, since Sections 13 and 46 of Act 703 exculpate the 1st and 3rd Appellants of all the charges against them and are consistent with their innocence.
“The appeal challenges the learned trial judge’s attribution of criminal liability to the Applicant notwithstanding the separate legal personality of the 3rd Appellant, contrary to settled principles of company law and criminal responsibility,” it added.
The affidavit contended that where an appeal raises substantial questions of law with strong prospects of success, the court may properly exercise its discretion in favour of admitting the Applicant to bail pending appeal.
The lawyers noted that when the Applicant was admitted to bail during the trial, he complied fully with all the bail conditions, attended every sitting of the Court whenever required, never attempted to abscond or evade the jurisdiction of the Court, and at no time interfered with any prosecution witness or obstructed the administration of justice.
“The Applicant is not a flight risk. He is a responsible and law-abiding individual with deep-rooted ties to this jurisdiction, including family, business, professional, and community obligations. He has no intention whatsoever of evading the due process of the law, and he is fully prepared to submit himself to the authority and jurisdiction of this Honourable Court as and when required.
“Any apprehension suggesting otherwise would be wholly unfounded and devoid of merit,” the affidavit stated.
It added that the continued presence of the Applicant with his lawyer will be necessary and vital for the successful preparation and prosecution of the appeal, as he sat through the trial and has come to terms with the proceedings.
The affidavit further disclosed that the Applicant is standing trial in two other criminal cases, with evidence to that effect attached and marked as Exhibits “CB 3” and “CB 4”.
It stated that prior to his conviction, the Applicant had a fixed place of abode which still remains at House No. MA 224, Asafo, Kumasi, in the Ashanti Region.
“Significantly, bail in his favour will not only enable him to work hand-in-hand with Counsel towards his acquittal but also make him available to consult and confer with Counsel, in contradistinction to his present confinement which naturally frustrates the lawyer-client engagement,” the affidavit argued.
According to the lawyers, the Applicant has credible persons of good character and sufficient means who are willing, able and ready to stand as sureties for him should the Court grant him bail.
It added that prior to his conviction, the Applicant had never had any brush with the law, so the issue of whether he will commit an offence while on bail does not arise.
“The Applicant categorically states that he will not in any way interfere with the course of justice if he is granted bail pending the determination of their appeal.
“The Applicant is willing to comply with all conditions reasonably necessary that may be imposed on him by the Court for the bail,” it stated.
The affidavit further argued that the Respondent will suffer no prejudice if the Applicant is admitted to bail upon appropriate conditions. Conversely, the Applicant stands to suffer grave and irreversible prejudice should he remain incarcerated while pursuing an appeal that raises serious and substantial legal issues.
“The balance of justice overwhelmingly favours preserving the Applicant’s liberty pending the determination of his appeal. This is an exceptional case in which the interests of justice require the exercise of this Honourable Court’s discretion in favour of the Applicant.
“The Applicant therefore respectfully prays this Honourable Court to admit him to bail pending the final determination of his appeal upon such terms as the Court considers just,” it concluded.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
