The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has reacted to the 20-year jail sentence handed down to its Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, commonly known as Chairman Wontumi, saying he has been jailed without evidence.

To the NPP, his conviction was largely based on assumptions and not evidence that he had transferred his legally acquired mining concession for illegal mining activities.

Addressing a press conference Monday evening, surrounded by key figures in the party, the General-Secretary of the NPP, Justin Kodua Frimpong, said the NPP sees "Wontumi as a  political prisoner".

He said the party was going to appeal the decision of the High Court.

He said it was the considered view of the NPP that Chairman "Wontumi has been convicted in circumstances where there was no evidence at all to support a conviction in respect of the offence for which he has been convicted."

"It was never disputed that Chairman Wontumi lawfully acquired his mineral concession, it was never disputed... the central question was whether that concession had been assigned or transferred in violation of the law."

"It is our respected view that no evidence was adduced before the court, establishing any assignment or transfer of mineral rights by Chairman Wontumi. The prosecution could not produce any evidence to show that Wontumi had assigned his mineral rights. Instead the conviction rested on assumptions and inferences, which in our view could not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is why we firmly believe that his conviction is a travesty of justice and has to be overturned on appeal," the General Secretary said.

Chairman Wontumi was on Monday morning found guilty and convicted on illegal mining charges and jailed for 20 years in the Samreboi mining concession case.

Graphic Online's Justice Agbenorsi who was in the courtroom, reported that the Accra High Court sentenced Chairman Wontumi to 20 years in prison in a trial in which he and his company, Akonta Mining Limited, were found guilty on four counts relating to the assignment of mineral rights without ministerial approval and facilitating an unlicensed mining operation.

That was after the court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, held that the prosecution had proved its case that Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining permitted Henry Okoom and Michael Gyedu Ayisi to undertake mining activities on the company's concession without securing the prior approval of the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, and thereby facilitated illegal mining on the land.

In addition to the jail term, Chairman Wontumi will pay GH¢120,000, in default of which he will serve three years in prison.

His company, however, will pay GH¢180,000 on two counts.

Relying largely on circumstantial evidence, the court was of the view that the absence of ministerial approval was never contested by the defence, describing the admission as implicit since no application for approval had been been made by the company.

Chairman Wontumi had told the court he had granted Henry Okoom permission only to reclaim land by planting coconut, and not to mine.

He said he did not know Okoom was a small-scale miner, maintaining that Okoom had presented himself as a mine support service provider.

The court, however, held that this explanation could not stand.

It added that Chairman Wontumi led no evidence to verify Okoom's claimed reclamation experience, and that Okoom, in unchallenged testimony, told the court he mined on unmined portions of the concession to recover costs after Chairman Wontumi failed to give him money for the reclamation work.

Relying on the principles of circumstantial evidence set out in Duah v The Republic [1987-88] 1 GLR 343, the court found that no reasonable explanation existed to rival the conclusion that Chairman Wontumi had knowingly permitted Okoom to mine.

It dismissed as an afterthought Chairman Wontumi's later explanation that he expected Okoom to recover his costs from the eventual sale of matured coconuts.

Corporate veil

Citing the exceptions in the seminal case of Morkor v Kuma, the court lifted Akonta Mining's corporate veil, finding no functioning management or executive board within the company.

It held that Chairman Wontumi was the true de facto holder of the mineral right and the sole controlling mind of the company during the period the offences were committed.

"The A3's corporate veil should be lifted as there is no real difference between the two (Chairman Wontumi and Akonta) in relation to dealing with the persons permitted to mine.

"There was no functioning management board and executive management board to deal as a company. All acts were done by Chairman Wontumi, the true de facto holder of the mineral right," the judge said.

Several lawyers took turns to pray for mitigation and urged the court to impose the minimum sentence.