News
Chairman Wontumi appeals conviction and prison sentence
- /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
https://spectator.com.gh/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/WhatsApp-Image-2026-07-29-at-14.37.20.jpeg&description=Chairman Wontumi appeals conviction and prison sentence', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
- Share
- Tweet /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 72
https://spectator.com.gh/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/WhatsApp-Image-2026-07-29-at-14.37.20.jpeg&description=Chairman Wontumi appeals conviction and prison sentence', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
Lawyers for the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, have filed an appeal challenging his conviction and prison sentence.
The notice of appeal was filed at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday by his lead lawyer, Samuel Atta Akyea.
According to the appeal, the defence is asking the appellate court to overturn both the conviction and the sentence handed down by the trial court.
The legal team raised more than 20 grounds of appeal, arguing that the conviction was not supported by the evidence presented during the trial.
It also contended that the trial court misinterpreted key laws governing mineral rights and mining operations.
The lawyers further argued that the trial court exceeded its authority by making decisions on the constitutionality of certain statutory provisions, a role they said belongs to the Supreme Court.
The appeal also challenged the court’s reliance on the testimony of one of the prosecution’s witnesses, identified as PW2. According to the defence, the witness admitted to engaging in illegal mining and taking part in the activities under investigation.
The legal team further argued that the circumstantial evidence presented during the trial did not conclusively prove Wontumi’s guilt and that other reasonable explanations existed.
It also maintained that the prosecution failed to establish the required criminal intent for the offences.
The appeal further challenged the trial court’s decision to lift the corporate veil in convicting the third appellant, describing it as legally unsustainable.
According to the defence, the trial court also failed to properly consider evidence that could have supported the accused persons.
The lawyers further argued that the prison sentences imposed were excessive and asked the Court of Appeal to set them aside.
By: Jacob Aggrey
The Director of Legal Affairs of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Gary Nimako Marfo, has questioned who will bear the cost of conducting presidential and parliamentary primaries following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the party’s delegate system.
Speaking to journalists, Mr. Nimako Marfo said he would not immediately comment on the ruling, adding that he wanted to wait for the full details before sharing his views.
“I don’t want to comment on it now. Let’s wait,” he said.
When asked about the Supreme Court’s decision that all members in good standing should vote in party elections, he shifted attention to the financial implications of implementing the ruling.
According to him, allowing all members in good standing to vote would increase the cost of organising internal party elections.
He questioned who would pay for the expanded electoral process.
“Who is going to pay for the cost of the elections?” he asked.
When a journalist suggested that political parties would bear the cost, Mr. Nimako Marfo replied, “Let’s wait and see.”
The comments come after the Supreme Court ruled that political parties should allow all members in good standing to vote in their internal elections, a decision that is expected to expand participation but also increase the financial and logistical demands of organising presidential and parliamentary primaries.
By: Jacob Aggrey
The Supreme Court of Ghana has declared the delegate system used by political parties to elect presidential and parliamentary candidates unconstitutional.
In a 5-2 majority decision delivered, the Court ruled that the long-standing system violates democratic principles and ordered all political parties to ensure every registered, card-bearing member participates in presidential and parliamentary primaries.
The ruling brings to an end decades of internal party elections conducted by a limited number of delegates.
The suit was filed by former Minister for Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation, Professor Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng; veteran politician Dr. Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe; and former Minister for Lands and Forestry, Dr. Christine Amoako-Nuamah.
The plaintiffs argued that the delegate system created inequality among party members by granting voting rights to a privileged minority while excluding ordinary members in good standing.
They told the Court that restricting voting rights to delegates was inconsistent with the democratic principles enshrined in the 1992 Constitution.
The Attorney-General’s Department supported the suit and urged the Court to adopt a “one member, one vote” approach.
In its submission, the State argued that political parties perform an important public function in Ghana’s democratic framework and that their internal electoral processes must reflect constitutional values of equality, participation and universal suffrage.
The Attorney-General further submitted that expanding voting rights to all registered members would strengthen accountability and deepen internal democracy within political parties.
The judgment means that going forward, presidential and parliamentary candidates will be selected by all registered members of a political party, instead of by delegates alone.
Political parties are expected to review their constitutions and structures to comply with the Court’s directive ahead of the 2028 general elections.
By Edem Mensah-Tsotorme
