The Minority Caucus in Parliament has called on the Attorney-General to publish the government’s enforcement record on illegal mining across the political divide.

They have also urged the Court of Appeal to closely examine what it describes as constitutional and legal flaws in the conviction of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi.

Addressing a press conference in Parliament, the caucus appealed to the Judiciary to reaffirm the constitutional threshold for referring constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, insisting that consistency in the administration of justice is essential to maintaining public confidence in Ghana’s democratic institutions.

The Minority maintained that its intervention was not intended to challenge the Judiciary as an institution or seek immunity for any individual accused of illegal mining. 

Instead, it said, their position is driven by their constitutional responsibility to scrutinise the conduct of the State and ensure that the rule of law is applied fairly and consistently.

While acknowledging the environmental destruction caused by illegal mining and supporting efforts to hold offenders accountable, the caucus argued that the proceedings leading to Chairman Wontumi’s conviction were marred by four major defects which, in its view, undermine the legitimacy of the judgment.

According to the Minority, the first concern relates to the delivery of judgment in the absence of Chairman Wontumi’s lead counsel despite prior notice to the court of the lawyer’s professional engagement outside the country. 

The caucus argued that the right of an accused person to legal representation of their choice is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and should only be restricted in exceptional circumstances.

The caucus further criticised the trial court’s refusal to refer constitutional questions arising from the case to the Supreme Court. 

It argued that Article 130 of the Constitution reserves constitutional interpretation exclusively for the apex court and cited previous Supreme Court decisions which, they said, require lower courts to make such referrals where constitutional issues arise.

The Minority also challenged the legal basis upon which Chairman Wontumi was personally convicted alongside Akonta Mining Limited. 

They contended that the court improperly disregarded the legal distinction between the company and its shareholder without establishing the recognised legal grounds for lifting the corporate veil, warning that the reasoning could have broader implications for businesses across the country.

The caucus further alleged selective enforcement of illegal mining laws, claiming that investigations and prosecutions involving individuals associated with the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) had not progressed with the same urgency as the case against Chairman Wontumi. 

According to them, this creates a perception that the justice system is being applied unevenly against political opponents.

The Minority therefore called on the Attorney-General to disclose the State’s prosecution record in illegal mining cases involving persons from all political parties, saying such transparency would help address concerns over selective justice.

They also urged the Court of Appeal to give careful consideration to issues surrounding the denial of counsel of choice, the refusal to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court and the legal reasoning underpinning the conviction of Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining Limited.

The caucus concluded that their concerns extend beyond the fate of one individual, insisting that the case presents a broader test of constitutional governance and equal justice under the law. 

The Minority further maintained that public confidence in the justice system depends on the consistent application of constitutional principles, irrespective of political affiliation.