Galamsey ‘Swallows’ First Kingpin As Wontumi Jailed 20-Years

The fight against illegal mining reached a historic turning point yesterday when the Accra High Court, sentenced Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, to 20 years’ imprisonment for illegal mining activities.

The landmark ruling, delivered by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay at the High Court’s Criminal Division, makes Wontumi one of the highest-profile political figures to be convicted and jailed over illegal mining, widely known as galamsey.

The court found him guilty on all six charges relating to illegal mining on the Samreboi concession in the Western Region.

In addition to the custodial sentence, the court imposed a fine of 10,000 penalty units, equivalent to GH¢120,000, with a default sentence of three years’ imprisonment should the fine remain unpaid. The custodial sentence and any default sentence are to run concurrently.

The 20-year sentence falls within the statutory punishment of 15 to 25 years prescribed under Ghana’s mining laws.

The court also convicted Akonta Mining Company Limited, a company linked to Mr. Antwi-Boasiako, but imposed only a financial penalty after considering mitigating circumstances.

The decision spared the company from the custodial punishment imposed on its controlling director.

Before sentencing, defence counsel led by Samuel Atta Akyea pleaded with the court to exercise mercy by imposing the minimum sentence of 15 years.

The defence argued that Mr. Antwi-Boasiako had cooperated fully with investigators, consistently honoured court proceedings, demonstrated remorse and had no previous criminal record.

Counsel also urged the court to consider his contributions to society and his family responsibilities.

However, after considering submissions from both the prosecution and defence, the court imposed a 20-year custodial sentence.

Ashigbey Wanted 25years Sentence

Meanwhile, Convener of the Media Coalition Against Illegal Mining, Dr. Kenneth Ashigbey, has welcomed the conviction but argued that the court should have imposed the maximum custodial sentence of 25 years.

Speaking on JoyNews after the verdict, Dr. Ashigbey described the judgment as a significant milestone in Ghana’s fight against illegal mining but insisted that influential financiers of galamsey deserve the harshest punishment under the law.

“I would have wished that the judge had imposed the maximum sentence of 25 years and also the maximum fine,” he stated.

According to him, Ghana’s mining laws allow courts to impose fines, custodial sentences or both, and politically exposed persons found guilty of financing illegal mining should face the full rigours of the law.

“The law talks about either the fine or the custodial sentence or both,” he noted.

‘Historic Victory’

Despite calling for a stiffer sentence, Dr. Ashigbey described the conviction as a historic victory for Ghana and all organisations that have consistently campaigned against illegal mining.

“This is a good day for Ghana. This is a good day for the Media Coalition Against Galamsey and for everybody who wants to see the end of this existential threat,” he declared.

He disclosed that the Samreboi prosecution originated from a petition submitted by the Media Coalition Against Illegal Mining to the then Attorney-General and the then Inspector-General of Police.

According to him, he, together with private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu and other campaigners, pursued the matter from its inception until judgment.

Dr. Ashigbey commended the Attorney-General for ensuring the prosecution was pursued to its conclusion and praised Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay for demonstrating courage in delivering judgment in one of the country’s most closely watched environmental cases.

He also acknowledged the role played by the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources in reviving investigations into the allegations after assuming office.

‘This Must Be The Beginning’

Dr. Ashigbey cautioned that Wontumi’s conviction should not mark the end of the campaign against illegal mining.

He called on the authorities to pursue all other politically exposed persons allegedly implicated in galamsey, regardless of their political affiliation or social status.

“There are several politically exposed persons involved in galamsey. There are MMDCEs, chiefs and others who have been publicly accused. This should only be the beginning,” he said.

He argued that Ghana would only win the fight against illegal mining if financiers and facilitators of the practice were prosecuted alongside those directly engaged in mining.

Describing illegal mining financiers as “economic saboteurs” and “nation wreckers,” Dr. Ashigbey said the environmental destruction caused by galamsey has resulted in polluted rivers, degraded forests, flooding, declining agricultural productivity and serious public health challenges.

He linked illegal mining to kidney disease, birth defects, contaminated water sources and the destruction of cocoa farms, insisting that the offence deserves the toughest sanctions available under the law.

“We kept pushing this case because it demonstrates that when the media and civil society remain persistent, justice can be achieved,” he added.

Taken To Nsawam Prison

Shortly after the judgment, Chairman Wontumi was transferred under security escort to the Nsawam Medium Security Prison to begin serving his sentence.

Former Government Spokesperson on Governance and Security, Dr. Palgrave Boakye-Danquah, confirmed the development during an interview on Asempa FM’s Ekosiisen programme.

“I have just parted ways with him, and he is being taken to Nsawam. How did we get to this stage as a country?” he said.

Dr. Boakye-Danquah disclosed that the defence team had been confident of securing an acquittal, insisting the prosecution failed to establish Wontumi’s direct involvement in illegal mining.

“We did not expect this outcome because, based on the evidence presented, nothing showed Chairman Wontumi was personally involved in illegal mining,” he maintained.

He further revealed that the defence had expected the High Court to await the outcome of an application pending before the Supreme Court before delivering judgment.

According to him, the trial judge disagreed with that position and proceeded with the ruling.