As proceedings continue before the Criminal Court 4 Division of the High Court in the matter involving Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi), Akonta Mining Limited and others, the evidence emerging directly from the witness box continues to reinforce one unavoidable legal truth:

The Republic has failed to establish any credible evidence that Chairman Wontumi assigned mining rights, authorized illegal mining, or personally benefited from any alleged unlawful mining activity.

This case was heavily publicized from the very beginning. Serious allegations were made publicly. Yet in court — where evidence matters more than propaganda — the prosecution continues to struggle to produce the very foundation required under Ghana’s mining laws to sustain these accusations.

Under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), assignment or transfer of mineral rights is not a casual conversation, speculation, assumption, or political accusation. The law is clear. Any lawful assignment of mineral rights requires:

• Formal written documentation;
• Strict regulatory procedures;
• Ministerial approval;
• And statutory compliance under Ghana’s mining regulations.

During proceedings, expert mining testimony placed before the court made this legal position abundantly clear.

Most importantly, the Republic has still failed to produce:

• Any written assignment agreement;
• Any ministerial approval authorizing transfer of mining rights;
• Any payment trail linking Chairman Wontumi to alleged illegal mining proceeds;
• Any operational authorization proving Akonta Mining engaged in illegal mining;
• Any evidence showing Chairman Wontumi directed, supervised or financed illegal mining;
• Any gold proceeds traced to him;
• Or any direct evidence proving criminal intent.

Instead, what the court continues to hear are assumptions, conjectures and attempts to criminalize alleged verbal interactions which, under Ghanaian mining law, do not constitute lawful assignment of mineral rights.

The court further heard expert evidence explaining the important distinction between reclamation activities and mining rights assignment. The testimony clarified that reclamation support services may occur within mining concessions without amounting to a transfer of mineral rights.

Indeed, the defence witness emphatically stated before the court that:
“Any assignment which is not conveyed in a deed and expressly approved and signed off by the Minister responsible for Mines is not recognized by the laws of Ghana.”

That statement goes to the very heart of this case.

Even more revealing is the fact that after months of investigations, public commentary and intense political attention, the prosecution has still failed to produce the most basic documentary evidence ordinarily expected in a criminal prosecution of this magnitude.

In criminal law, suspicion — no matter how loud — can never replace proof.

Public opinion cannot replace evidence.
Political commentary cannot replace legal proof.
Media headlines cannot replace statutory requirements.

The constitutional standard remains proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This principle is not unique to Chairman Wontumi’s case. Courts across democratic jurisdictions have consistently held that criminal convictions cannot stand on speculation or association alone.

In the celebrated Ghanaian case of Kpebu v Attorney-General, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of constitutional protections, due process and the presumption of innocence. Similarly, courts in several commonwealth jurisdictions have repeatedly warned against prosecutions driven more by public sentiment than legally admissible evidence.

History teaches an important lesson:
When politics enters criminal prosecution, courts must become even more careful guardians of fairness, objectivity and the rule of law.

Chairman Wontumi has throughout this process cooperated with lawful procedures, respected the authority of the court, and demonstrated confidence in the independence of Ghana’s judiciary.

This matter must therefore be decided strictly on evidence, law and constitutional fairness — not political emotions, media pressure or public hysteria.

The Republic bears the burden of proof.
That burden cannot be shifted.
And based on the evidence currently before the court, serious and reasonable doubt continues to exist.

Justice demands courage.
Justice demands fairness.
Justice demands evidence.

We therefore remain fully confident that truth, law and justice will ultimately prevail.

We urge all party faithful, supporters and members of the public to remain calm, peaceful and respectful of the judicial process as the court prepares to deliver judgment.

Evidence, not noise.
Law, not politics.
Justice, not persecution.