Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, effectively sealed his own fate in the Samreboi illegal mining case by admitting he allowed another person to operate on his mining concession without the required authorisation, private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has said.

Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express on Monday, shortly after the High Court convicted the New Patriotic Party Ashanti Regional Chairman and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment, Mr Kpebu argued that Wontumi’s own admissions strengthened the prosecution’s case.

The High Court found Wontumi guilty of illegal mining offences in connection with activities at the Samreboi mining concession.

According to Kpebu, the central issue was not simply that illegal mining took place, but that Akonta Mining, the company licensed to operate the concession, remained responsible for what happened there.

“The key thing is, as they mine, Akonta Mining is the company that has been given authority, and Wontumi is the directing mind of the company. So if you give out the concession and you are not monitoring, and the person is mining, you gave it.”

He argued that Wontumi admitted allowing Henry Okum to operate on the concession without first obtaining the minister’s approval required under the law.

“I remember that giving it out was contrary to the rules. You don’t give it out without the permission of the minister. So he’s already committed a crime by allowing Henry Okum, who testified, to be there without supervision. And at that point, he admits that he did so without authorisation, so he nailed himself.”

Mr Kpebu dismissed the defence’s argument that no formal written authorisation had been issued, describing it as legally untenable.

“So that afterthought statement that oh, but he didn’t put it in writing so it is called authorisation is farcical.”

He added: “Generally, there’s this popular saying in property law class that an agreement for a lease, an agreement so orally, is as good as a written one. But if you make an agreement orally, oh Henry, take this concession, do whatever you want to do, is binding. You cannot later say, oh, but I didn’t write it down.”

“Can you imagine if we were to say that for anything a man says, if he doesn’t write it down, he’s not bound. Can I imagine the fraud will be encouraging? You hear his lawyers making that argument, now even making a fool of the whole case he permitted it.”

Kpebu also rejected suggestions that evidence about reclamation contradicted Henry Okum’s testimony.

“Don’t forget, seeing a bit of reclamation is not inconsistent with what Henry said. Henry said, Wontumi gave him permission to mine for gold and also to use part of the proceeds to reclaim. Henry hasn’t contradicted himself.”

He noted that the trial judge never found the prosecution witness to be unreliable.

“The judge did not say that based on the cross-examination, Henry is not believable. Henry is not creditworthy, so Henry’s evidence is unreliable.”

Kpebu said Wontumi’s explanation that he only engaged Henry for reclamation work ultimately weakened his defence because no payment was made for the work.

“But unfortunately for Wontumi, he didn’t pay, and reclamation is expensive.”

He also questioned Wontumi’s account that the reclamation arrangement involved planting coconut trees and sharing future proceeds.

“Part of Wontumi’s story is that, oh, Henry, as part of the reclamation, was to plant coconut trees, and when these coconut trees grow, they will share the profits at the end. Can you imagine this cock and bull story? It didn’t jive. So those are the things that gave Wontumi away. The story didn’t jive.”