Introduction

Long before the landmark criminal proceedings of 2025 that terminated on Monday July 20, 2026, the legal operations and corporate activities surrounding Akonta Mining Company Limited were subjected to rigorous judicial scrutiny in the civil courts. In Akonta Mining Company Limited & 4 Others v. The Attorney General & 3 Others (Suit No. E12/51/13), delivered on January 18, 2019, at the Automated High Court, Sekondi, the court confronted a suit alleging state trespass, unlawful conversion, physical looting, and extortion arising from government anti-galamsey operations in May and June 2013.

This suit centered on whether state security agencies and local authorities committed actionable civil torts of trespass, conversion, and extortion when destroying camp structures and seizing heavy equipment on Akonta Mining's concession, or whether their actions were entirely justified under statutory environmental mandates and the common law doctrine of public necessity. The High Court resolved all issues against the mining entities, holding that a prospecting licence holder engaged in unapproved, illegal small-scale gold mining with foreign nationals cannot maintain an action in tort against state actors intervening in the public interest.

Judicial history and presiding judges

The lawsuit endured a long trial process, passing through four distinct High Court judges before reaching its final conclusion:

1. Her Ladyship Justice Georgina Mensa-Datsa J: Commenced the hearing of evidence but could not conclude it.

• His Lordship Justice Paul Utter Dery J: Took over proceedings but was unable to complete the trial.

• His Lordship Justice Edward Amoako Asante J: Concluded the taking of all oral and documentary evidence before departing on an international judicial assignment.

• His Lordship Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong J: Inherited the intact record of proceedings and exhibits, delivering the final written judgment on Friday, January 18, 2019.

The parties and their claims

The Plaintiffs and their demands

The five Plaintiffs who instituted the action were:

1. Akonta Mining Company Limited (1^st Plaintiff) - Holder of a gold prospecting licence in Samreboi.

• Hansol Mining (2^nd Plaintiff) - Company registered to provide mine support services.

• Hansol Trading Ghana Limited (3^rd Plaintiff) - Entity engaged in the buying and selling of gold.

• Hansol Assembly Company (4^th Plaintiff) - Vehicle assembly enterprise.

• Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Chairman Wontumi (5^th Plaintiff) – Entrepreneur, investor, and sole directing mind/owner of the 1^st to 4^th Plaintiff companies.

The Plaintiffs were represented by counsel Egbert Faibille Jnr. Esq. They sought extensive declaratory, restitutionary, and compensatory reliefs, including:

• Declarations of trespass and conversion against the 4^th Defendant for seizing vehicles and machinery on May 27, 2013.

• Recovery of GH¢70,000.00 allegedly extorted under undue influence by the 4^th Defendant through an intermediary.

• US$43,266,365.02 in special damages for the value of stolen gold, looted cash, burnt equipment, imported spare parts, and a destroyed vehicle assembly plant.

• General damages, costs, and a perpetual injunction restraining state agencies from interfering with the Samreboi concession.

The Defendants and their defence

The four Defendants sued in the action were:

1. The Attorney General (1^st Defendant) – Representing the Republic.

• The Chief of Defence Staff (2^nd Defendant) – Sued for the actions of military personnel in the Task Force.

• The Inspector General of Police (3^rd Defendant) – Sued for the conduct of police personnel.

• Victor Samuel Meisu (4^th Defendant) – The Chief Executive of the Wassa Amenfi West District Assembly.

The 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd Defendants were represented by Mrs. Frances Mullen Ansah, while the 4^th Defendant was represented by Samuel Ahorlo-Adinkrah Esq.

The core defence: The Defendants denied all claims of looting, arson, and extortion. They contended that the Plaintiffs were illegally mining gold, rather than merely prospecting and had diverted and severely polluted the Tano River. Furthermore, the Defendants asserted that Chairman Wontumi illegally engaged over 100 Chinese nationals in small-scale mining operations. The Task Force acted under the statutory mandate of the Inter-Ministerial Task Force set up by the President in May 2013 to halt illegal mining, abate environmental nuisance, and seize equipment under Act 703 and Act 900. The 4^th Defendant categorically denied demanding or receiving GH¢70,000.00.

Key defence witnesses and their testimonies

To discharge the burden of proving that the Plaintiffs were engaged in illegal mining, the Defendants called several technical officers and operational commanders whose evidence proved decisive:

1. Anthony Worlali (DW1) - District Mining Officer, Asankragwa

DW1 testified that after receiving complaints from local communities, he inspected the site near Sefwi Ekura and confronted Chairman Wontumi:

"He found a large number of people mining and when he inquired, he was told that the 5^th plaintiff had employed them to conduct mining. The 5^th plaintiff was named as the financier of the activities. He took the contact number of the 5^th plaintiff on phone. He said the 5^th plaintiff confirmed the information describing himself as the President of the Ghana Chinese Chamber of Commerce. The 5^th plaintiff further said he was financing their acquisition of small scale applications over there and that he was holding a service support company issued by the Minerals Commission."

2. Desmond Boahene (DW5) - Inspector of Mines, Minerals Commission

DW5 conducted field measurements and plotted coordinates on the national cadastral system:

"Yes we saw that the areas we visited have been mined, in some places they have put back the soil (backfilling) and in some places they have not done that and there were series of ponds in those areas, vast land has been cleared and we also saw excavators also mining and dumping the soil in the Tano river. In all, we observed that they have mined within their concession and outside their concession to the river body that is to the very bank of the Tano river. So what we took geographical coordinates that is the longitude and latitude of those points that we visited, we took three points and plotted it on our cadastral system to see where they fall and what came out was that after the process you could see that Akonta has mined within their concession and outside their concession, has also gone beyond the buffer zones or the reservation for the river by law."

3. Evans Adade (DW3) - Principal Inspector of Mines

DW3 testified regarding an inspection where foreign workers fled upon being questioned:

"They saw a lot of mining activities going on with excavators. They saw that the activities were so close to the Tano river sometimes between 60 to 70 meters from the bank. They asked them to stop as what they were doing was illegal. The Manager they were introduced to was a Chinese. There were other four Chinese. They asked for the licence they were operating with and were made to speak to the 5^th plaintiff. They told the 5^th plaintiff that what was going on was illegal as they were mining close to the river. Whilst talking to the 5^th plaintiff, the Chinese bolted."

4. Naval Captain Kofi Ankamah (DW4) - Director of Naval Liaison, Ministry of Defence

DW4 testified to the environmental state of the water body and submitted video evidence (Exhibit 8):

"relative to the issue of mining he said the Tano river had been polluted and was brownish in colour. The whole area along the river bank had been mined. He took pictures and video of the scene at Akonta mining which he tendered as Exhibit 8."

5. Captain Daniel Attobrah Bandah (DW7) - Task Force Operational Leader

DW7 detailed the admissions made on-site by site manager Mawutor Dennis (PW2) and the condition of the forest:

"the leadership of the task force asked Mawutor (PW2) what the employees of Akonta mining engaged in and he answered they mined gold. Mawutor was requested to produce the licence for it but he responded the 5^th plaintiff had it. After failing to get 5^th plaintiff by phone, the task force asked Mawutor to take them round. He observed that a vast area of the forest stretching over two kilometres in length and about a kilometer in width had been destroyed. He said there were several mining pits dug and left uncovered and the Tano river had been severely polluted."

The issues and judicial resolution

Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong synthesized the trial down to five primary legal issues, resolving each against the Plaintiffs:

• Mining vs. Prospecting activities: The court resolved that the Plaintiffs engaged in illegal gold mining rather than lawful prospecting.

• Alleged looting of cash and gold: The court found the allegations of looting unproven, inherently implausible, and dismissed them completely.

• Destruction of property & assembly plant: The court held that no assembly plant was destroyed; the Task Force engaged in legitimate abatement of an illegal camp and lawful equipment seizure.

• Extortion under undue influence: The court resolved that the GH¢70,000.00 claim was unproven, finding the payment to be a private commercial land transaction.

• Entitlement to tortious reliefs: The court held that the Plaintiffs could not maintain an action in trespass or conversion, dismissing the suit entirely.

•  

Issue 1: Whether the Plaintiffs were mining gold or merely prospecting

• Legal Assessment: Under Sections 9 and 37 of Act 703, a prospecting licence (Exhibit G) strictly limits the holder to searching for minerals and testing deposits.

• Judicial Resolution: The court held that the Defendants overwhelmingly proved actual gold mining. Under cross-examination, Chairman Wontumi admitted he paid small-scale miners to work the land without holding a small-scale mining licence:

"Q. Where were you licensed to do the small scale mining?

A. I now change my answer to say I do not have licence for small scale mining. 

Q. What exactly were you doing on the land between your concession and the Tano river? 

A. Prospecting 

Q. What were you doing on the land reserved for small scale mining when you do not have a license to do that?

A. I was doing prospecting on that land. I paid the people doing the small scale mining on it and it became mine to do large scale mining."

The court also found that the engagement of over 100 Chinese nationals violated Section 99(4) of Act 703 (as amended by Act 900), rejecting claims that Hansol Mining (2^nd Plaintiff) provided valid support services, as its permit (Exhibits A and B) restricted operations exclusively to Amansie Central in the Ashanti Region:

"Following your submission of the annual report on your operations and the payment of the requisite renewal fee, we wish to renew your registration as Mine Support Service Company for the period 8^th January 2012 to 7^th January 2013 to provide contract mining services exclusively to Infinity Gold Resources a small scale mining operation which is located at Kontromfi in Amansie Central District of the Ashanti Region."

Issue 2: Whether State operatives looted US$ 7m cash and 50kg of gold

• Legal Assessment: Citing UK Supreme Court principles in Braganza v. BP Shipping Ltd and In Re H (Minors), the court noted that inherently improbable allegations require exceptionally cogent proof:

"Some things are inherently a great deal less likely than others. The more unlikely something is, the more cogent must be the evidence required to persuade the decision-maker that it has indeed happened." "When assessing the probabilities, the court will have in mind as a factor to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case that the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is that the event occurred and hence the stronger there should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on a balance of the probabilities."

• Judicial Resolution: The court dismissed the claim as preposterous. Video evidence (Exhibit 11 series) showed site workers, not uniformed Task Force personnel, orderly moving freezers and a small table-top safe. The court held it defied human reason that $7 million in cash and $2.5 million in gold would be stored in wooden shacks in a forest guarded by a junior high school graduate.

Issue 3: Whether State operatives destroyed a $10m vehicle assembly plant

• Legal Assessment: The court evaluated claims under special damages rules (Norgbey v. Asante), requiring strict proof of loss and value.

• Judicial Resolution: The court rejected the claim. Video recordings showed no assembly plant or burning vehicles. Chairman Wontumi's brochure (Exhibit E) and technical engineer (PW4) confirmed that Hansol Assembly Company operated out of Tema, making claims of an assembly plant deep in the Samreboi bush absurd:

"Q. Did you assemble the cars in the bush before transporting them to your office in Tema?

A. My lady we take everything from Tema and convey it to Akonta mining site and after the engineers have assembled the vehicles, we send the vehicles back to Tema."

The court noted:

"This presents a ridiculous scenario especially so when no reason is assigned for this rather awkward way of doing things... These answers were plainly absurd and could only pass for a lie."

Issue 4: Whether the 4^th Defendant extorted GH¢70,000.00 via undue influence

• Legal Assessment: Applying Allcard v. Skinner and BCCI v. Aboody, the court examined whether the District Chief Executive exploited his office to demand money.

• Judicial Resolution: The claim was dismissed. The 4^th Defendant’s witness, NDC Constituency Chairman Kwame Kissi Sam (DW1), proved that the GH¢70,000.00 payment was a commercial installment for a 100-acre land acquisition deal between himself and Chairman Wontumi, supported by bank statements (Exhibit 16).

Issue 5: Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to damages for trespass

• Legal Assessment: The court considered common law defences to trespass, specifically the immunity of state officials acting out of public necessity. Citing Saltpetre's Case (1606) and Lord Coke's classic maxim in Fleming’s The Law of Torts:

"for the commonwealth, a man shall suffer damage; as for saving of a city or town a house shall be plucked down if the next be on fire... and a thing for the commonwealth every man may do without being liable to an action"

• Judicial Resolution: Justice Adjei-Frimpong held that trespass cannot be maintained where a party is committing environmental crimes and a state Task Force intervenes in the public interest to protect public water bodies and forests. The seizure of machinery was fully authorised under Section 99(5) of Act 900. In paragraph 18 of their own statement of claim, the Plaintiffs had admitted:

"18. The said task force among others was mandated by President Mahama to seize all equipment of illegal miners, arrest and prosecute Ghanaians and non-Ghanaians engaged in small scale mining, deport all non-Ghanaians engaged in the practice and revoke licenses of Ghanaians who have sub-leased their concessions to non-Ghanaians."

Final disposition and award of costs

The High Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' action in its entirety. Justice Adjei-Frimpong awarded costs of GH¢10,000.00 against Chairman Wontumi in favour of the 4^th Defendant. However, regarding the Attorney General, Chief of Defence Staff, and Inspector General of Police, the court declined to award costs, observing that "by virtue of the seizures and the other acts done at the scene, the state has clearly vindicated the interest of the public."

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