IntroductionThis is a bit of hard law. After an early morning court session Monday, I entered this courtroom and spent about 45 minutes listening to the delivery of this judgment before heading to a case in the Commercial Court two floors up in the complex. A judgment of this magnitude, touching on environmental degradation and the exploitation of public resources, carries legal significance that resonates far beyond the courtroom.By the time I left, the judge was concluding her detailed analysis of the facts and evidence on Counts 4 and 6. Her meticulous approach was striking. Initially, I was under the impression that Chairman Wontumi had still not filed his address. What emerges is a judgment with profound implications for corporate governance, statutory compliance, and the national fight against galamsey.This brief unpacks the judgment – from the preliminary constitutional challenges and the piercing of the corporate veil to the evidentiary standards, statutory prison remission calculations, and financial penalties imposed by the court.Case Overview and the Legal FrameworkIn The Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Chairman Wontumi, Kwame Antwi (at large), and Akonta Mining Company Limited, the High Court of Justice (Criminal Court 4), Accra, presided over by Her Ladyship Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, delivered the judgment addressing the regulatory and criminal frameworks governing national mineral exploitation. That is what this case was essentially about – allowing third parties onto an exclusive concession without the required prior ministerial approval.The State mounted six charges against the 1st Accused, Bernard Antwi Boasiako (A1). The 3rd Accused is Akonta Mining Company Limited (A3), which he co-owns with the 2nd Accused, Kwame Antwi (A2), who remained at large throughout the trial.All charges were grounded in the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995). The charges centered on two primary offences:Assignment of mineral rights without approval, contrary to Section 14(1) (which prohibits transferring, assigning, mortgaging, or encumbering a mineral right without written ministerial approval) and Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703 (Counts 1, 2, and 3).Purposely facilitating an unlicensed mining operation, contrary to Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703 (which creates penal liability for aiding, facilitating, or promoting any breach of the Act where no specific penalty is listed) (Counts 4, 5, and 6).Factual Background: The Samreboi Operation and Seized EvidenceThe narrative established by the Prosecution revealed that on April 16, 2025, police officers embarked on an “anti-galamsey” operation in the Samreboi Forest within the Western Region. The next day, the team arrested Michael Gyadu Ayisi (PW1) alongside 28 workers occupying a physical structure bearing the bold corporate name of Akonta Mining Company Limited (A3).At the site, law enforcement seized an array of equipment and contraband, including:25 serviceable excavators and 4 non-serviceable excavators.8 pump-action guns, 1 single-barrelled gun, and 310 AAA/BB cartridges.5 pieces of metal suspected to be gold contained in a sachet.4 motorcycles, 2 vehicles, water-pumping machines, a grease gun, 4 machetes, and GH¢ 157,000.00 in cash.During police interrogation, Michael Gyadu Ayisi (PW1) named Henry Okum (PW2) as his employer who directed operations on the concession. Following his arrest, Henry Okum (PW2) disclosed that in September 2024, he struck an oral arrangement with Bernard Antwi Boasiako (A1) to enter Akonta Mining’s concession to extract gold from unmined portions while using part of the gold proceeds to fund land reclamation (specifically planting coconut seedlings) on degraded, mined-out areas.In his caution statement (Exhibit C) and witness statement, Bernard Antwi Boasiako (A1) admitted to granting verbal permission to Henry Okum (PW2), but asserted that his authorization was strictly restricted to land reclamation. A1 maintained that PW2’s gold mining activities were unauthorized and conducted without his knowledge.Key Evidence and How the Court Resolved the IssuesTo resolve the case, the court isolated the essential legal requirements for each charge and evaluated the evidence to determine whether those legal tests were met beyond a reasonable doubt.1. Resolution of Preliminary Constitutional ChallengeBefore examining the facts, the court addressed a submission by new Defence Counsel Samuel Atta Akyea requesting a stay of judgment to refer Section 14(1) and Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703 to the Supreme Court under Article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution – the provision vesting the Supreme Court with exclusive original jurisdiction over genuine questions of constitutional interpretation and requiring lower courts to refer such issues. The Defence argued these statutory provisions were unconstitutionally vague under Article 19(11) of the Constitution, which establishes the fundamental constitutional principle that every criminal offence and its penalty must be clearly defined and prescribed in a written law.Justice Kocuvie-Tay refused to refer the matter, holding that lower courts should not delay trials unless a genuine ambiguity exists. Quoting settled constitutional law:“A trial court is not obliged, upon the mere say-so of a party that a question of constitutional interpretation arises, to down its tools and refer the matter upstairs.”Citing The Republic v. Maikankan, Aduamoa II v. Twum II, Ex Parte James Gyakye Quayson, and The Republic v. Special Tribunal; Ex Parte Akosah, the court resolved that the written statutes clearly defined both the forbidden conduct and the penalties, making a Supreme Court referral unnecessary. Procedurally, Section 236 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) operates as a similar, lawful statutory mechanism for criminal procedure generally, ensuring offences function by referencing substantive prohibitions without violating constitutional clarity.This statutory framework gives effect to the Article 257 constitutional provision governing national resources, whereby all minerals in their natural state in Ghana are vested in the President on behalf of, and in trust for, the people of Ghana – thereby requiring strict statutory authorization and ministerial oversight before any third party can exploit or deal in mineral rights.2. Applying Burdens of Proof and Standards of EvidenceThe court anchored its evaluation on Section 15(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), the codified rule establishing that the party alleging a crime (the Prosecution) bears the burden of persuasion throughout, and the general evidentiary rules under Part II of NRCD 323 regarding presumptions and proof.Relying on landmark authorities:Woolmington v. DPP & COP v. Antwi: The Prosecution carries the duty to prove every element of guilt, and the Defence only needs to raise a reasonable doubt to be acquitted.Miller v. Minister of Pensions (per Lord Denning): Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires a high degree of probability, excluding purely “fanciful possibilities.”Trial of William Palmer: A court cannot convict an accused person based on mere suspicion, no matter how strong.3. Resolving the “Land Reclamation” Defence via Circumstantial EvidenceBecause there was no written agreement between A1 and PW2, the court applied the legal rules governing circumstantial evidence set out in Duah v. The Republic, The State v. Anani Fiadzo, and Logan & Laverick v. The Republic. Under these cases, circumstantial evidence can ground a conviction only if it leads to an irresistible conclusion that points solely to guilt.The court resolved the conflict between A1’s claim (that he only allowed coconut planting) and PW2’s claim (that he was allowed to mine gold to pay for the coconut planting) by examining the common-sense facts:Professional Background: Henry Okum (PW2) was a licensed small-scale miner, not a land reclamation specialist.Reclamation Costs: Defence expert Wisdom Edem Gomashie (DW1) admitted under cross-examination that reclaiming mined land is very expensive.Lack of Funding: A1 admitted he gave no money to PW2 to perform the reclamation.The court concluded that it defied human reason for a small-scale miner to fund expensive land reclamation deep in a forest out of his own pocket for free. The only logical, irresistible conclusion was that A1 expected PW2 to finance the reclamation using gold mined from the concession.4. Resolving the Absence of Statutory ApprovalsThrough Josef Iroko (PW4), an expert witness from the Minerals Commission, the Prosecution proved that Akonta Mining (A3) never submitted an application to assign or transfer its mineral rights. Under Clause 1(d) of Exhibit G (Mining Lease), the concession belonged exclusively to A3. Allowing a third party onto the land without written approval created an illegal encumbrance under Section 14(1) of Act 703.In addition, land reclamation is legally classified as a “Mine Support Service” under Section 59 of Act 703, the regulatory provision requiring service providers to register with the Minerals Commission and obtain a license, and Regulation 2 of the Minerals and Mining (Support Services) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2174), which explicitly categorizes contract mining and reclamation under Categories A to C. Because PW2 was not registered or licensed as a support service provider, allowing him onto the land breached Section 59. Because Act 703 lists no specific penalty for breaching Section 59, it triggered the penal sanctions under Section 99(2)(b).5. Lifting the Corporate Veil and Rejecting Technical DefencesDefence Counsel argued under the legal principle of ejusdem generis (that general words must be interpreted narrowly) that “otherwise dealt in” under Section 14(1) required a formal written document. He also cited Section 147(1) of the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992), which provides that acts done by a managing director in the ordinary course of business are acts of the company as principal, and Dalex Finance v. Ebenezer Denzel Amanor to argue that corporate liabilities belong strictly to the company, not individual directors.The court rejected both technicalities:Statutory Purpose: A narrow reading of Section 14(1) would allow illegal miners to bypass the law simply by making informal, oral agreements.Piercing the Corporate Veil: Applying Salomon v. Salomon & Co., Morkor v. Kuma (No. 1), and Kwabena Duffour & Others v. The Republic, the court held that separate corporate identity is not absolute. While Section 107(1)(a) of Act 703 automatically extends derivative criminal responsibility to directors and officers when an offence is established against a corporate body, the court directly pierced the veil based on the facts: A1 admitted that co-director Kwame Antwi (A2) had been missing since 2021/2022, no annual returns were filed, and PW2 testified that “Chairman Wontumi owns Akonta Mining, and Akonta Mining is Chairman Wontumi.” Finding no functioning board or corporate structure, the court held A1 to be the true, de facto mineral rights holder.6. Resolving Purposeful FacilitationThe court resolved that A1 actively and purposefully facilitated the illegal operation under Section 99(2)(b) based on three facts:A1 admitted introducing PW2 to an equipment vendor to acquire heavy machinery.PW2 testified that A1 wrote a letter on Akonta Mining letterhead to the Western Regional Security Council (REGSEC) to provide operational security.Despite knowing the security threats surrounding illegal mining, as confirmed by defence witness Kwabena Okyere Darko-Mensah (DW3), A1 never once visited the site to inspect or ensure PW2 was only planting trees.Statutory Provisions for Sentence ImpositionIn passing sentence, the court applied the statutory penalty rules enacted under Section 3 of the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995), which amended Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703.This statute establishes mandatory sentencing limits for any person who facilitates or abets an unlicensed mining operation or breaches provisions of the Act lacking a specific penalty. The law prescribes:A mandatory fine ranging between 10,000 penalty units and 15,000 penalty units.A mandatory prison term ranging between 15 years and 25 years.Taking into account that A1 and A3 were first-time offenders and considering their plea in mitigation, the court selected sentences within these statutory boundaries.Failures of A1, A3, and Their CounselThroughout the judgment, the court underscored a series of critical failures by A1 and A3, which were compounded by lack of cross-examination by their lawyer, Andy Appiah-Kubi in respect of a “critical piece of evidence”.A1 neglected to establish basic corporate governance structures, failing to maintain a functioning Board of Directors, convene meetings, or file annual returns for A3, while co-director Kwame Antwi (A2) had been absent since 2021/2022. This lapse enabled the court to pierce the corporate veil and hold A1 personally liable. He further admitted that his arrangement with PW2 was entirely verbal, attempting to argue that the absence of a written contract did not transform a reclamation arrangement into mining. The court, however, interpreted this informality as a deliberate attempt to evade regulatory oversight. A1 also failed to provide funds for the supposed reclamation work or verify PW2’s credentials, background, or licensing, demonstrating a reckless disregard for due diligence. Moreover, despite the strict legal duty of mineral rights holders to reclaim mined land, A1 conceded that he never visited or supervised the site to ensure reclamation was actually being carried out rather than gold mining.The Defence strategy itself was marred by serious omissions attributable to Counsel. The observed that he failed to cross-examine PW2 on crucial testimony, particularly when PW2 stated in court that he extracted gold and used the proceeds for reclamation with A1’s full knowledge. Once PW2 refuted A1’s claim that the arrangement was solely for coconut planting, the evidentiary burden shifted to A1 to substantiate his version of events. Yet no witnesses, receipts, or financial records were produced to support the defence, leaving the court with unchallenged testimony and uncorroborated assertions. These combined failures, both by the accused and their lawyer, fatally weakened their case and solidified the court’s finding of liability – (see pages 28 and 29 for instance).Judicial Findings, Conviction, and SentenceSummary of Guilt and Sentences ImposedThe court found Bernard Antwi Boasiako (A1) guilty on Count 1 (Assignment of mineral rights without approval) and Count 4 (Purposely facilitating an unlicensed mining operation).Count 1: 20 years imprisonment in hard labour, plus a fine of 10,000 penalty units (or 3 additional years in hard labour in default).Count 4: 20 years imprisonment in hard labour, plus a fine of 10,000 penalty units (or 3 additional years in hard labour in default).Custodial Term Execution: The court ordered both prison terms to run concurrently, meaning A1 faces a single head sentence of 20 years imprisonment.The court found Akonta Mining Company Limited (A3) guilty on Count 3 and Count 6.Count 3: A fine of 15,000 penalty units.Count 6: A fine of 15,000 penalty units.Prison Sentence Calculation and Statutory RemissionIn the prison calendar, 20 years is not exactly 20 calendar years. Let’s attempt some calculations in the event he is unsuccessful with his promised appeal. Under Section 34(1) of the Prisons Service Act, 1972 (NRCD 46), the statutory execution rule allowing prisoners serving sentences of six weeks or more to earn time off for good conduct, a convict may earn a remission of up to one-third (1/3) of their sentence through steady industry.Applying this statutory rule to A1’s 20-year sentence:Full Judicial Sentence: 20 calendar years.Maximum Statutory Remission (1/3 Reduction): 6 years and 8 months.Actual Time in Custody: If A1 earns full remission through good conduct, his actual execution time in prison will be 13 years and 4 months.Monetary Fine ConversionsUnder our laws, fines expressed in penalty units convert to Ghana Cedis at a fixed statutory rate where 1 penalty unit = GH¢ 12.00.Bernard Antwi Boasiako (A1): 20,000 penalty units (10,000 + 10,000) = GH¢ 240,000.00.Akonta Mining Company Limited (A3): 30,000 penalty units (15,000 + 15,000) = GH¢ 360,000.00.Combined Fine Payment: GH¢ 600,000.00 total.Ancillary Orders of ForfeiturePursuant to Section 9 of Act 703 (as amended by Act 995), which mandates the forfeiture of illegal mining equipment to the State, Her Ladyship Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay ordered that all 25 serviceable excavators, firearms, ammunition, gold samples, vehicles, machinery, and the GH¢ 157,000.00 in cash seized during the raid be forfeited to the State. The Minister is required to handle and dispose of these forfeited items in strict compliance with the administrative procedures set out under Section 10 of Act 703.Join me on my weekly legal clinic THE LAW every Sunday @ 2pm on Joynews