Samuel Atta Akyea, the lead counsel for the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi), has described his client's conviction as unsupported by law or evidence, insisting that the defence team will challenge the ruling through the appellate courts.

Speaking on JoyFM's NewsNight on Tuesday, July 21, Mr Atta Akyea argued that a review of the prosecution's case revealed significant gaps that could not justify the judgement.

"I can tell you something which is very consequential. Looking at the poverty of the prosecution's case, I do not see how this judgement is founded on law and evidence," he said.

Mr Atta Akyea maintained that the prosecution failed to produce direct evidence showing that Chairman Wontumi unlawfully assigned his mining concession or received any financial benefit from the alleged transaction.

According to him, the prosecution witnesses never testified that the NPP chairman transferred mineral rights to them or demanded payment in exchange for access to the concession.

"Today we're talking about an assignment of a mining right. On whose mere say-so? The man has not said, 'Give me 250,000 US dollars and I will give you the concession.' They didn't testify to that. They never said he wanted money from them," he stated.

He explained that the evidence before the court showed only that the individuals had been permitted to undertake land reclamation works and establish coconut plantations after the reclamation.

"If the two individuals who became the prosecution's witnesses went on illegal mining, how do you attribute their criminal activities to Chairman Wontumi?" he questioned.

• Read also: Chairman Wontumi sentenced to 20 years in prison

The former Akim Abuakwa South Member of Parliament also criticised the prosecution's reliance on witnesses whom he said should themselves have been facing criminal charges.

"For the life of me, I can't believe how those who were supposed to be charged were instead called to testify against the man who gave them the opportunity to reclaim the land," he argued.

Mr Atta Akyea further rejected suggestions that allowing others to work on a mining concession amounts to transferring ownership or mineral rights.

"When you have a farm, and you employ people to harvest cassava or work on it, does that mean you have assigned ownership of the farm to them? The absurdity is monstrous," he said.

He insisted the conviction was based largely on circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof of any unlawful transfer of mining rights.

The lawyer also criticised the trial court for dismissing constitutional issues raised by the defence, describing the decision as "an aberration of justice".

"I raised constitutional issues for the consideration of the judge, but they were ignored. We will test these matters before the appellate courts," he said.

Mr Atta Akyea confirmed that the legal team will appeal the judgement at the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, proceed to the Supreme Court.

"We will exercise every right available under the law. If we are unsuccessful at the Court of Appeal, we will proceed to the Supreme Court. We will use every legal avenue available to ensure that justice is done," he added.