Wontumi 20-Year Sentence: Appiah-Kubi challenges assessment of evidence during trial

Former Member of Parliament for Asante Akim North and lawyer, Andy Appiah-Kubi, has challenged aspects of the High Court’s assessment of the evidence in the illegal mining case involving Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, arguing that portions of the defence case were not reflected in the judgment.

Appiah-Kubi said he disagreed with the court’s treatment of the testimony of prosecution witness Henry Okyere and the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

According to him, the judgment relied on findings that were not supported by the record of proceedings.

“There is nowhere in the evidence that suggests he was to fund the reclamation with proceeds from mining,” he said on TV3’s Keypoints.

Appiah-Kubi argued that the arrangement described during the trial related instead to sharing proceeds from a proposed coconut plantation after land reclamation.

“The discussion was that we would share the proceeds from the coconut farm,” he stated.

He further contended that the defence had challenged the prosecution witness during cross-examination on whether Wontumi benefited from the mining activities or directed the operations.

According to Appiah-Kubi, the witness denied that Wontumi received proceeds from the mining or exercised control over the mining activities.

He also questioned why the court preferred the prosecution witness’s account over Wontumi’s evidence despite what he described as inconsistencies in the witness’s earlier statements.

“In all cases where there is doubt, the doubt is to the benefit of the accused,” he said.

Appiah-Kubi maintained that these issues would be central to the appeal and expressed confidence that the appellate court would review the complete record of proceedings alongside the written judgment before reaching its determination.