Tuesday, 21 July

20-year sentence for Wontumi not enough – Ken Ashigbey

News
Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Chamber of Mines, Ing. Ken Ashigbey

 

Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Chamber of Mines, Ing. Ken Ashigbey, has welcomed the conviction and sentencing of New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, describing the judgment as a significant step in Ghana's fight against illegal mining.

His remarks come after the Criminal Division of the High Court sentenced Chairman Wontumi to 20 years' imprisonment on each of two counts, with the custodial sentences to run concurrently. The court also imposed a fine of 10,000 penalty units on each count.

The court further convicted Akonta Mining Limited, ordering the company to pay 15,000 penalty units on each of two counts.

Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay ruled that the prosecution had established the offences beyond reasonable doubt, leading to Wontumi's conviction on Counts One and Four, while Akonta Mining Limited was found guilty on Counts Three and Six.

Speaking in an interview Ing. Ashigbey said the verdict sends a strong message that illegal mining will not go unpunished.

A long-time campaigner against illegal mining, he expressed hope that other individuals found to have engaged in similar offences would also face the full rigours of the law, including custodial sentences and financial penalties where appropriate.

He further urged the Mahama administration to ensure that the enforcement of mining laws is applied fairly and consistently, regardless of a person's status or political affiliation.

The convictions followed the High Court's dismissal of a last-minute application by the defence seeking to postpone the judgment and refer constitutional issues in the case to the Supreme Court.

The defence had argued that questions arising from its legal submissions required interpretation by the apex court before judgment could be delivered.

Justice Kocuvie-Tay, however, rejected the application, ruling that the relevant provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), were clear and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, allowing the court to proceed with its judgment.

   

Source: Classfmonline.com/Zita Okwang