Wontumi asks High Court to refer mining charges to Supreme Court
The request concerns legal provisions being relied on by the Attorney-General in the criminal case against Chairman Wontumi and his company.
Lawyers for Ashanti Regional NPP Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, have asked the High Court to refer parts of the Minerals and Mining Act to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
The request concerns legal provisions being relied on by the Attorney-General in the criminal case against Chairman Wontumi and his company.
His lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea, argues that the provisions raise constitutional questions that must be determined by the Supreme Court.
In his written address, counsel said if the trial court declines to make the referral, then Chairman Wontumi should be acquitted on the charges brought against him.
Chairman Wontumi is standing trial at the Criminal Division of the High Court in Accra, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay.
He has pleaded not guilty.
The Attorney-General has accused him and his company of allowing two persons to carry out mining activities on the company’s concession without the approval of the sector minister.
He is facing two counts of assignment of mineral rights without approval and two counts of purposely facilitating an unlicensed mining operation at Samreboi in the Western Region.
But his lawyers are challenging the constitutional validity of some of the provisions underpinning the charges.
They want the Supreme Court to determine whether Section 14(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006, Act 703, is vague, overbroad and inconsistent with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 19(11) requires criminal offences to be clearly defined by law.
The defence is also asking for a determination on whether Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703, as amended by Section 3 of the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019, Act 995, is similarly overbroad and unconstitutional.
According to the defence, those provisions form the basis of some of the charges preferred against Chairman Wontumi.
The lawyers are further asking the Supreme Court to decide whether counts four and six, which are founded solely on Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703 as amended, are inconsistent with Article 19(11).
They argue that if the provisions are found to be unconstitutional, the charges based on them should also be treated as null and void.
The application now places before the High Court the question of whether the constitutional issues raised are substantial enough to warrant a referral to the Supreme Court.
