Key Quote from the Judgment: The court found that the evidence presented during the trial did not support the defence's claim that the arrangement was solely for land reclamation, but instead pointed to an assignment of mining rights. (Paraphrased from the court's reasoning. Replace with the exact wording from the judgment if quoting directly.)
A closer look at the court's reasoning and the role of expert testimony in the Wontumi trial
The written judgment in the criminal trial involving New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has generated intense public discussion, particularly over the testimony of the defence's expert witness, mining consultant Wisdom Gomashie.
Although Gomashie was called to support the defence, the court's judgment suggests that some of his responses under cross-examination ultimately reinforced key aspects of the prosecution's case.
Assignment of Mineral Rights
One of the charges before the court alleged that Wontumi assigned his mineral rights to another party to undertake mining activities without obtaining the approval required from the Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources.
According to the judgment, the prosecution relied on evidence from the alleged assignees and a site manager to establish how mining operations were conducted at the site.
The defence argued that there was no written assignment between Wontumi and the alleged assignee. Instead, Wontumi maintained that the parties had reached only a verbal understanding for land reclamation and coconut cultivation, rather than for mining.
The Defence's Expert Witness
To support this position, the defence called mining expert Wisdom Gomashie to explain the legal requirements governing the assignment of mineral rights.
The judgment records that Gomashie testified that assignments are required by law to be in writing. The defence relied on that interpretation to argue that, because no written assignment existed, there could not have been a legally recognised assignment.
Cross-Examination Becomes a Turning Point
The Deputy Attorney-General challenged that interpretation during cross-examination.
According to the judgment, Gomashie agreed that failing to reduce an assignment into writing would itself amount to a breach of Section 14 of the applicable mining law.
The court considered this concession significant because it undermined the defence's argument that the absence of a written agreement meant no offence had been committed.
Reclamation or Mining?
Another central issue before the court was whether the alleged assignees had been engaged solely to reclaim degraded land or to conduct mining activities.
The defence maintained that the arrangement related only to reclamation.
However, the judgment indicates that there was no documentary evidence supporting that claim. The court therefore evaluated the surrounding circumstances presented during the trial.
During cross-examination, Gomashie acknowledged that land reclamation is an expensive undertaking. When asked whether he was aware that Wontumi had paid the alleged assignees for reclamation work, he said he had no such knowledge.
The court contrasted this with Wontumi's own evidence that payment would eventually come from proceeds generated by coconut farming after the trees matured.
According to the judgment, the court rejected that explanation, describing it as an afterthought.
Licensing Evidence
The judgment further records that Gomashie confirmed that reclamation activities require the appropriate licence from the Minerals Commission.
The prosecution argued that the alleged assignees possessed licences for small-scale mining rather than reclamation.
Evidence before the court also showed that gold was allegedly recovered when workers at the site were arrested. The court considered this among the circumstances supporting the prosecution's contention that mining—not reclamation—was taking place.
Why the Court Rejected the Defence
After assessing both the documentary and oral evidence, together with the expert testimony and cross-examination, the court concluded that the defence's explanation was not supported by the evidence before it.
Instead, the judgment found that the surrounding circumstances pointed to an assignment of mining rights rather than a reclamation arrangement.
The ruling demonstrates how expert witnesses can significantly influence court proceedings. While they are called to assist the party that engages them, their testimony under cross-examination may also strengthen the opposing side's case if concessions are made.
Why This Judgment Matters
Beyond the conviction itself, the judgment highlights the legal importance of proper documentation in mining transactions, regulatory compliance under Ghana's mining laws, and the weight courts attach to expert testimony.
Legal analysts say the decision could serve as an important reference in future prosecutions involving mining concessions, licence transfers and undocumented operational agreements.
Editor's Note: This article is an analysis based on the court's written judgment and the evidence discussed during the proceedings. Readers are encouraged to consult the full judgment for the complete legal reasoning and context.