Akonta Mining trial: Court allows disputed video footage into evidence

An Accra High Court has admitted a pen drive containing video footage as evidence in the ongoing criminal trial involving Akonta Mining Company Limited and its director, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, despite objections from the prosecution.

Presiding judge Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay ruled that concerns raised over the absence of timestamps and location verification go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. She said such issues could be tested during cross-examination.

The footage, referenced in a witness statement by former Western Regional Minister Kwabena Okyere Darko-Mensah, is linked to an inspection at Akonta Mining’s concession at Samreboi in the Western Region.

The court also admitted Darko-Mensah’s witness statement dated May 25, but rejected a separate statement by Evans Adai, which was filed late in the proceedings.

The case has been adjourned to 1 June.

The ruling comes as the defence continues to dispute the basis of the prosecution’s case, arguing that the charges do not reflect the actual legal issues before the court.

According to the defence, the central question is not illegal mining or unlawful occupation of land, since the State has acknowledged that Akonta Mining holds a valid concession.

Instead, it argues the dispute relates to operational arrangements within the concession and whether these amount to an unlawful transfer or assignment of mineral rights under Ghana’s mining laws.

The defence has cited the Minerals and Mining (Support Services) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2174), which recognises contract mining and support service arrangements within licensed mining operations.

Lawyers for Chairman Wontumi argue that participation by contractors or service providers within a concession does not in itself constitute a transfer of mineral rights.

They contend that the prosecution must prove an actual assignment agreement or change in ownership or control of the concession, as well as criminal intent.

The defence has questioned what it describes as gaps in the prosecution’s case, asking where evidence of any formal transfer agreement exists and whether there is proof of deliberate wrongdoing.

It maintains that criminal liability cannot be based on assumptions or public perceptions, but must be established beyond reasonable doubt.