Samuel Atta Akyea, the lead counsel for the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, says the defence team has identified more than 20 grounds of appeal against his client's conviction, arguing that the trial was marred by fundamental constitutional and legal errors.

Speaking on JoyFM's Top Story on Tuesday, July 21, Samuel Atta Akyea said one of the key issues the defence will raise is the trial judge's decision not to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court for interpretation before delivering judgement.

His comments come after the Minority in Parliament described the judgement against Chairman Wontumi as defective and questioned the legal basis for the conviction.

"So far we've assembled no less than 20 grounds of appeal," Mr Atta Akyea revealed.

"The first one is a constitutional imperative that Her Ladyship was bound to make a reference to the Supreme Court for the determination of critical issues."

According to him, the case raised constitutional questions under Articles 130 and 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, as well as provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, which only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret.

Mr Atta Akyea argued that both the defence and the Attorney General advanced competing interpretations of the Constitution during the trial, making it mandatory for the High Court to seek guidance from the apex court.

He cited the Akosah case, which he said establishes that where parties place rival interpretations on constitutional provisions, the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court.

"Even the very authority that she cited in the judgment is aware rival meanings are placed on the Constitution by the parties," he said.

"So we said the manner of the charges and the way it's been couched sins against Article 19(11) and therefore the Supreme Court should interpret it. The Attorney General said no."

Mr Atta Akyea maintained that by determining the constitutional questions herself, the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction.

"The court graduated itself into the Supreme Court to make a determination of constitutional matters. For me, that is a very fundamental error which can quash the entire decision because the power to interpret the Constitution is not vested in a High Court judge; it is with the Supreme Court," he argued.

He further contended that the charges against Chairman Wontumi failed to satisfy the constitutional requirement that criminal offences and their corresponding penalties be clearly defined.

"It was not a question of statutory construction. It was a constitutional interpretation as to whether the offence, as formulated, met the requirements of Article 19(11), which says a person cannot be convicted unless the offence and its penalty are clearly defined," he said.

The former Akim Abuakwa South Member of Parliament described the judge's refusal to refer the constitutional issues as a serious error that undermined the entire proceeding.

"I believe it's a very serious matter that the judge ignored. It seems to me that the judge was in an ambulance mood to convict the guy.

"I do not see how any High Court judge will ignore serious and consequential constitutional interpretation and go ahead with the matter," he said.

Mr Atta Akyea said the defence is confident the Court of Appeal will carefully examine the constitutional and procedural issues raised and determine whether the conviction can stand.