Background
The case centered on Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, who serves as the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP). He and Akonta Mining Company Limited are accused of engaging in illegal mining operations in the Western Region, commonly referred to as galamsey. The charges include three counts of assigning mineral rights without approval and three counts of facilitating an unlicensed mining operation, under the Minerals and Mining Act, as amended.
The matter has drawn attention in Ghana’s legal and political spheres, as it involves a high-profile party official and a major mining concern. The court previously set conditions for Wontumi’s bail and ordered close scrutiny of his travel and reporting obligations as part of the proceedings.
The Adjournment and Arrest Warrant
On Tuesday, October 28, 2025, Justice Audrey Kocuvi-Tay presided over the session. The court reportedly adjourned the case after Wontumi absented himself without the appropriate permission. Minutes after the adjournment, the court issued an arrest warrant due to the absence. Court observers noted that the time of the trial was not publicly advertised for that day, which may have contributed to the confusion around attendance.
Following the adjournment, Wontumi and his lawyer, Andy Appiah-Kubi, filed an application seeking to be heard again. They contended that they did not receive timely notice of the start time, believing the trial would commence at 10:00 a.m. The prosecution and the court had expected punctual appearance at the start of the sitting, which typically begins at 9:00 a.m. The judge acknowledged that the overt time for Tuesday’s session was not advertised, but emphasized that Wontumi and his counsel were expected to be present at 9:00 a.m. when the court sitting commences.
Rescission of the Warrant
In a turn of events, Justice Kocuvi-Tay decided to rescind the arrest warrant. The judge ruled that the absence was not a deliberate flouting of court orders but was linked to communication gaps regarding the trial’s start time. This decision effectively restores Wontumi’s standing in the ongoing case and allows the proceedings to continue under the bail conditions previously set.
Earlier, on October 7, 2025, the court had granted Wontumi bail in the amount of GH¢15 million with three sureties. The bail package required two of the sureties to be justified with landed properties within the court’s jurisdiction, and the defendant was ordered to deposit his passport with the registrar. A stop-list was placed to prevent travel outside the country, and sureties were required to provide copies of Ghana Cards and digital addresses to the court registrar. Additionally, Wontumi was ordered to report to the investigator on the first and third Mondays of each month.
What Happens Next in the Case
With the arrest warrant rescinded, the case proceeds with the existing bail arrangements. The court will likely resume formal hearings, with all parties expected to coordinate on the next date of appearance. The charges remain serious, touching on the possible misallocation of mineral rights and the operation of an unlicensed mining venture. Legal observers say that the outcome will hinge on whether the prosecution can establish the specific elements of the alleged offenses beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Context and Implications
The Accra High Court’s decision underscores the importance of clear communication in court proceedings. While bail conditions are stringent, procedural missteps such as miscommunication about trial start times can lead to temporary reversals or delays, even in high-profile cases. As this matter unfolds, it will be watched closely for how the judiciary handles submissions from both the state and the defense, and whether any procedural remedies are pursued to minimize future attendance disputes.
Conclusion
The rescission of the arrest warrant against Chairman Wontumi marks a pivotal moment in what are already politically charged proceedings. The court’s ruling reflects a balance between enforcing courtroom discipline and ensuring that defendants are not penalized for misunderstandings beyond their control. As the case advances, observers will look to whether the prosecution can meet its burden while respecting the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
