Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, has rejected claims by the Minority in Parliament and the main opposition party that the prosecution and conviction of NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi) were legally flawed, arguing that the defence fundamentally misunderstood the law underpinning the charges.

Responding to allegations of selective justice and criticisms of the High Court's judgement, Dr Srem-Sai said the defence had consistently mischaracterised the offences for which Wontumi was prosecuted.

Speaking on Joy FM's News Night on Tuesday, July 21, he said one of the key arguments advanced by Wontumi's lawyers—that the prosecution failed to prove an assignment of the mining concession—was based on a misunderstanding of the law.

"There is some fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the defence counsel," he said.

According to Dr Srem-Sai, the charge against Wontumi was not that he had assigned the mining concession to another person. Rather, the offence related to allowing another party to deal with the concession without obtaining the prior written approval of the Minister, contrary to the Minerals and Mining Act.

"The charge did not say there had been an assignment to anyone. If you read the particulars of the offence, there is no mention of assignment there," he explained.

He argued that the defence's reliance on the absence of a written assignment did not excuse the alleged conduct, noting that the law requires any such arrangement to receive the minister's written approval.

"If the law says you should do it in writing and you refuse to do it in writing, that is the first breach of the law," he stated.

Dr Srem-Sai also dismissed the minority's assertion that the trial judge erred by refusing to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court.

He explained that under established legal principles, a judge is not obliged to refer every issue labelled as constitutional by a litigant.

"The authorities are clear that the fact that one party to a case claims there is a constitutional issue does not mean that the judge should refer it to the Supreme Court," he said.

He maintained that while every accused person is entitled to a fair trial, the decision on whether a constitutional question merits referral rests with the trial judge based on the law and the circumstances of the case.

His comments come after the Minority in Parliament described the High Court's judgement on Chairman Wontumi being sentenced to 20 years in prison as defective and accused the prosecution of selective justice.