Samartex Timber & Plywood Company Ltd v. Akonta Mining Services (Suit No. E1/5/22)

Introduction

The judicial chronicle of Akonta Mining Company Limited and its directing mind, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, famously known as Chairman Wontumi, presents one of the most revealing case studies in modern Ghanaian natural resource litigation. Reading these decisions side by side reveals a striking pattern: Chairman Wontumi’s operational fixation on the forest reserves and riverbanks of Samreboi is neither recent nor incidental. It spans over a decade of continuous friction with local communities, state regulators, and private commercial interest holders.

In my first analysis, I examined the July 20, 2026 criminal prosecution, which resulted in a historic 20-year prison sentence under Sections 14 and 99 of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by Act 995. In the second installment, I reviewed the 2019 judgment in the civil suit, where Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong detailed how Wontumi's earlier illegal Samreboi operations led to the destruction of the Tano River environment and held that state security forces acting out of public necessity could not be held liable in tort.

In this third chapter, a judgment delivered on May 19, 2023, by Her Ladyship Afia N. Adu-Amankwa at the High Court in Sekondi (Suit No. E1/5/22), we see the civil-law precursor to Wontumi’s persistent footprint in Samreboi. It bridges the gap between private land rights and public constitutional restraints, demonstrating that even when Akonta Mining attempted to formalise its Samreboi presence through executive government leases, it continued to bypass mandatory legal checkpoints.

The Court held that a mining lease signed by the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources does not confer an immediate or absolute right to occupy land or conduct mining operations. Without explicit Parliamentary ratification under Article 268(1) of the 1992 Constitution and mandatory environmental permits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Forestry Commission under Section 18(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), any physical entry onto private or stool-leased land constitutes an actionable civil trespass. Consequently, leases remain inchoate and legally invalid prior to parliamentary ratification (this was reaffirmed in Exton Cubic Group Limited), and pre-existing surface rights continue to co-exist alongside unexecuted mineral rights.

The Parties and their claims

The Plaintiff and Its reliefs

The Plaintiff, Samartex Timber & Plywood Company Ltd, is a timber manufacturing giant with decades-long industrial roots in Samreboi. Samartex held a 50-year registered deed of lease (dated January 1, 2012) granted by the Asankragwa Agona Royal Stool over 1,112.55 acres. Over the years, Samartex established vast corporate infrastructure on the land, including sawmills, worker bungalows, schools, a hospital, a water treatment plant, and a licensed private airstrip.

Samartex sued the Defendant for:

• Declaration of title to the parcel of land at Samreboi.
• Recovery of possession of the encroached areas.
• General damages for civil trespass.
• Costs.

The Defendant and its counterclaim

The Defendant, Akonta Mining Services (owned, financed, and directed by Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Chairman Wontumi), made yet another aggressive entry into Samreboi. Re-entering the same geographic theatre where his operations were raided in 2013, Wontumi relied on two new mining leasehold agreements executed with the Government of Ghana on July 23, 2021.

Upon entering Samartex's leased land, Akonta Mining excavated portions of the earth, set up a gold washing plant and a settling dam, mounted barricades across private roads built by Samartex, and deployed security guards within the 200-meter exclusive safety buffer zone of Samartex's airstrip, severely disrupting local utility lines.

When confronted, Akonta Mining denied committing trespass and filed a counterclaim seeking:

• A declaration that it had legitimately acquired a superior mining right over the land pursuant to its separate Government Mining Lease Agreements dated July 23, 2021.
• An order directed at Samartex to respect Akonta's mining rights for quiet enjoyment and possession.

Constitutional and statutory foundations

To determine whether Chairman Wontumi's company could lawfully displace Samartex's long-standing occupancy, the court grounded its reasoning in constitutional mandates, statutory provisions, and binding judicial precedents:

1. Article 257(6) of the 1992 Constitution & Vesting of Minerals

The court recognised the foundational constitutional principle governing mineral ownership:

"Every mineral in its natural state in, under or upon land in Ghana, rivers, streams, water courses throughout the country, the exclusive economic zone and any area covered by the territorial sea or continental shelf is the property of the Republic of Ghana and is vested in the President on behalf of, and in trust for the people of Ghana."

2. Article 268(1) & Section 5(4) of Act 703 - Parliamentary ratification

The court emphasised that an executive signature alone cannot grant exploitation rights:

"A transaction contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or 'concession by or on behalf of a person or body of persons, for the exploitation of a mineral in Ghana shall be subject to ratification by Parliament."

3. Binding precedent on unratified leases: Ex Parte Attorney-General (Exton Cubic Case)

Her Ladyship relied on the Supreme Court's definitive ruling per Marful-Sau JSC in The Republic v. High Court, General Jurisdiction (6) Accra, Ex Parte: Attorney-General [Exton Cubic Group Ltd - Interested Party] [2019] DLSC6520:

"We wonder the essence of Article 268(1) in the Constitution, if it was not intended that, mining leases shall only become valid upon Parliamentary ratification. We are of the considered opinion, therefore, that without Parliamentary ratification a mineral lease granted by the Executive arm of Government shall be invalid. In other words, we hold that pursuant to article 268(1) every mineral lease granted pursuant to the Minerals and Mining Act, Act 703, requires the ratification of Parliament to be valid."

4. Section 18(1) of Act 703 - Environmental & Forestry approvals

The court highlighted the mandatory environmental prerequisite for physical operational entry:

"Before undertaking an activity or operation under a mineral right, the holder of the mineral right shall obtain the necessary approvals and permits required from the Forestry Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency for the protection of natural resources, public health and the environment."

5. Section 72(3) of Act 703 - Coexistence of surface rights

The court addressed the statutory preservation of existing land occupiers:

"The lawful occupier of land within an area subject to a mineral right shall retain the right to graze livestock upon or to cultivate the surface of the land if the grazing or cultivation does not interfere with the mineral operations in the area."

The issues and judicial resolution

The High Court settled five core issues, resolving them across three main legal determinations:

Issue 1: Whether Samartex's surface lease or Akonta Mining's lease supersedes

Akonta Mining contended that because minerals are vested in the President, an executive mining lease automatically extinguishes or overrides any prior surface lease.

The court flatly rejected this argument. Reading Sections 72, 73, and 74 of Act 703 together, Her Ladyship held that the law specifically designs surface rights and mineral rights to coexist simultaneously. A surface occupier is only required to yield to a mining company if that company possesses a fully valid, legally effective lease and pays fair compensation for surface disturbance under Section 74.

Issue 2: Whether Akonta Mining possessed a legally valid mining lease

Akonta Mining produced signed executive lease agreements (Exhibits 1 and 2) executed by the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources on July 23, 2021, claiming these granted absolute authorisation to mine. 

Applying Article 268(1) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 5(4) of Act 703, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Exton Cubic, the court held that an executive lease signed by a Minister is invalid, inchoate, and void without Parliamentary ratification. Because Akonta Mining failed to prove that its leases had been laid before or ratified by Parliament, the court declared Exhibit 2 legally ineffective.

Issue 3: Whether Akonta Mining complied with statutory environmental permits

Akonta Mining argued that its entry was lawful because it had paid ground rent to the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands and submitted applications to the EPA (Exhibits 7 and 8). Its witness, General Manager Edward Akuoko, testified that the EPA "allowed them to commence operations" while the permitting process was ongoing.

The High Court decisively dismissed this "informal administrative permission" defence. Under Section 18(1) of Act 703, obtaining formal EPA and Forestry Commission permits is a strict condition precedent (sine qua non) prior to touching the soil. Her Ladyship stated:

"Commencing mining operations without the necessary permits makes the defendant's entry onto the land illegal and, therefore, a trespass. The mineral leases granted by the government are invalid. They can only be valid by Parliament's ratification of them... The defendant committed trespass when she went unto the land to commence operations without the necessary permits."

Final disposition, assessment of damages, and historical pattern

Having declared Akonta Mining's lease invalid and its entry an illegal trespass, the High Court granted full relief to Samartex Timber & Plywood Company Ltd:

• Title & Possession Restored: Samartex was declared the lawful occupant of the disputed Samreboi land parcel (per Exhibit A) and granted an order for recovery of possession against Akonta Mining.
• Dismissal of Counterclaim: Akonta Mining’s counterclaim seeking a declaration of valid mining rights was dismissed in its entirety.
• General Damages Awarded: Applying the standard measure of damages formulated by Abban J.A. in Laryea v. Oforiwaa [1984-86] 2 GLR 410 @ 429 ("regard should be had to the acreage of the land... the period of wrongful occupation and the damage caused"), the court ordered Akonta Mining Services to pay GH¢50,000.00 in general damages for encroaching on Samartex's airstrip buffer zone, blocking roads, and disturbing utility systems.

The Broader Pattern in the Akonta Mining Trilogy

When viewed alongside the 2026 criminal conviction and the 2019 civil judgment, Samartex v. Akonta Mining [2023] completes a revealing portrait of Chairman Wontumi’s long history in Samreboi:

1. In the July 20, 2026 Judgment (Part I): The state secured a 20-year prison sentence against Chairman Wontumi under Sections 14 and 99 of Act 703 for mining in forest reserves without statutory permits, establishing the ultimate criminal consequence of persistent non-compliance.
2. In the January 18, 2019 Judgment (Part II): Operating under a mere prospecting license, Wontumi engaged in unapproved full-scale gold mining with over 100 Chinese nationals, polluting the Tano River until state security forces raided the camp out of public necessity.
3. In the May 19, 2023 Judgment (Part III): Armed with executive leases, Wontumi returned to Samreboi, only to clash with Samartex by commencing heavy earth-moving operations without securing Parliamentary ratification or EPA and Forestry permits - leading to a judicial finding of civil trespass.

Ultimately, Her Ladyship Afia N. Adu-Amankwa’s judgment stands as a firm judicial reminder: whether in civil litigation or constitutional law, no corporate entity or political figure can treat executive leases as a license to bypass the statutory and constitutional architecture of Ghana.

Join me on my weekly legal clinic THE LAW every Sunday @ 2pm on Joynews