The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has filed an application challenging a High Court decision dismissing his submission of no case.
He has also filed a motion seeking to halt the trial pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal against the ruling.
Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Company Limited are facing six counts of allegedly permitting Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi to undertake mining activities on the company’s concession without obtaining prior approval from the sector minister.
They are also accused of facilitating unlicensed mining operations.
The court, in dismissing the submission of no case filed by the accused, held that the initial evidence presented by the state stood unless the accused persons produced sufficient contrary evidence to disprove it.
It subsequently gave the accused seven days to indicate whether they would remain silent and allow the court to determine the case based on the prosecution’s evidence, or whether Chairman Wontumi would testify in person and file witness statements from individuals he intends to call in his defence.
When the case was called today, both the interlocutory appeal and the motion for stay of proceedings pending appeal were brought to the attention of the court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay.
However, the state, represented by the Deputy Attorney-General, Justice Srem-Sai, waived his right to file a formal response opposing the application.
According to the Deputy Attorney-General, Chairman Wontumi’s affidavit in support of the motion contained no factual depositions but rather legal arguments and opinions.
He therefore prayed for an abridgement of time for the motion, which had April 16, 2026, as the return date, to be heard immediately.
However, counsel for Chairman Wontumi said he was not prepared to move the motion.
“I pray that counsel should apply formally if he wants an abridgement of time. We are not prepared to move this application today,” counsel submitted.
In response, the court stated that it had the inherent jurisdiction to shorten time limits for any application.
The judge further indicated that an opposing party is not required to file an affidavit in opposition before the court can consider an application, adding that the court may determine an application whether or not it has been formally moved.
Following discussions, the court proposed March 27, March 30 and March 31 as possible dates for the hearing.
However, both parties agreed on April 2, 2026.
The case has accordingly been adjourned to April 2 for arguments for and against the motion.
