Ken Ashigbey: Wontumi’s 20-year sentence is punitive enough

The Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Chamber of Mines, Ing. Ken Ashigbey, has welcomed the sentencing of Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, in the Akonta Mining illegal mining case.

His comments follow the High Court’s decision to sentence Chairman Wontumi to 20 years’ imprisonment on each of the two counts for which he was convicted. The sentences are to run concurrently. The court also fined him 10,000 penalty units on each count.

Akonta Mining Limited, which was convicted on two counts, was fined 15,000 penalty units on each count.

Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay found Wontumi guilty on Counts One and Four, while Akonta Mining Limited was convicted on Counts Three and Six, after ruling that the prosecution had proven all the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

Speaking in an interview with Nana Tuffour Boateng on Channel One TV, Ing. Ashigbey, who has been a strong advocate in the fight against illegal mining (galamsey), said the sentence would serve as a deterrent to others involved in the practice.

“I’m happy that this case has gone its full circle. I would have wished that the learned judge would have given 25 years plus the maximum fine, but 20 years is good enough. Yes, it’s punitive enough, but not enough,” he said.

He expressed the hope that other individuals involved in illegal mining would also face similar penalties, including maximum prison terms and fines.

Ing. Ashigbey urged the Mahama administration to ensure that all persons found culpable in illegal mining activities are treated equally under the law.

“Other kingpins should be made to face justice,” he suggested.

The convictions followed the court’s dismissal of a last-minute application by the defence seeking to delay judgment and refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court.

The application, filed on July 16, 2026, argued that constitutional issues raised in the defence’s written address required interpretation by the apex court.

However, Justice Kocuvie-Tay held that Section 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), was clear and unambiguous and did not conflict with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.