The conviction of NPP Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, aka Chairman Wontumi, was driven by the weakness of his own defence rather than any legal technicality, private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has said.Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Mr Kpebu described Wontumi’s explanation that he only authorised reclamation work on the Samreboi concession as a “cock-and-bull story” that failed to stand up against the evidence before the court.His comments came after the High Court in Accra found Wontumi guilty of illegal mining offences and sentenced him to 20 years in prison in the Samreboi mining concession case.According to Mr Kpebu, the evidence showed that Akonta Mining, the company linked to Wontumi, had been granted the concession, making him responsible for activities carried out 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 had already admitted to allowing another individual, Henry Okum, to operate on the concession without the required ministerial approval.“I remember that giving it out was contrary to the rules. You don’t give 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 rejected suggestions that the absence of written permission weakened the prosecution’s case.“So that afterthought statement that oh, but he didn’t put it in writing so it is called authorisation is farcical.”Drawing on principles of property law, he said oral agreements are legally binding.“Generally, there’s this popular saying in property law class that an agreement for a lease, an agreement 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.”Mr Kpebu also dismissed claims that evidence of reclamation contradicted the prosecution’s case.“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 Henry Okum to be an unreliable witness.“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.”Instead, Mr Kpebu said Wontumi’s own account failed because it was unsupported by the facts.“Wontumi is saying that he only asked Henry to go and do reclamation. But unfortunately for Wontumi, he didn’t pay, and reclamation is expensive.”He said the explanation that the parties intended to recover reclamation costs through future coconut farming only weakened the defence.“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.”