Lawyers for the incarcerated Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, have filed an application at the High Court seeking bail pending the determination of his appeal against his conviction and sentence.
The application, filed on August 5, 2026, by counsel Samuel Atta Akyea of Zoe, Akyea & Co., invokes Section 96(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), and Section 33(1) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459).
The motion prays the High Court to admit Chairman Wontumi to bail while his appeal is heard and determined, relying on the grounds contained in an accompanying affidavit filed by the defence.
The case, titled The Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako @ Wontumi, Kwame Antwi (at large) and Akonta Mining Company Limited, lists Chairman Wontumi as the first appellant/applicant and Akonta Mining Company Limited as the third appellant.
Court records indicate that the application is scheduled to be moved before the High Court, Criminal Division ‘4’ in Accra on August 19, 2026.
Copies have been served on the Office of the Attorney-General, which is the respondent in the matter, and on the Director of the Nsawam Medium Security Prisons, where the applicant is currently serving his sentence.
The High Court is expected to determine whether Chairman Wontumi should be granted bail pending the outcome of his appeal against the conviction.
Chairman Wontumi was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment after Criminal Court 4 of the High Court found him guilty on all six charges preferred against him. He was convicted together with Akonta Mining Company Limited, while a third accused person, Kwame Antwi, remains at large.
The prosecution said the accused persons engaged in illegal mining activities on Akonta Mining’s concession at Samreboi in the Western Region.
According to the prosecution, they unlawfully assigned mineral rights on the concession without the approval of the sector minister and facilitated mining operations without the requisite authorisation, contrary to provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act.
The case has generated significant political and legal attention, with the defence maintaining that the conviction is being challenged through the appellate process, while the state insists the prosecution was conducted in accordance with the law.
Leave a Reply