Presenting a submission of no case, his counsel, Andy Appiah-Kubi, argued that the Attorney-General (A-G) had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to warrant the accused and his company being called upon to open their defence.
“Having regard to the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the essential elements of the offences charged, it is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has woefully failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons on all six counts.
“The prosecution’s case suffers from fundamental and fatal deficiencies, both in terms of the absence of evidence on essential elements and in terms of the quality and reliability of the evidence adduced,” counsel submitted.
Charges
The Attorney-General has charged Chairman Wontumi and his company, Akonta Mining Company Ltd, with six counts of permitting Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi to mine on the company’s concession without obtaining prior approval from the sector minister, as well as facilitating unlicensed mining.
The prosecution called four witnesses to support its case.
Michael Gyedu Ayisi testified that he is a miner who partnered with Henry Okum to operate on Akonta Mining Company Limited’s concession. Okum claimed he had permission from Chairman Wontumi to conduct mining activities and worked on the concession until their arrest.
Under cross-examination, Ayisi admitted that he had never met or communicated with Chairman Wontumi and did not possess a mining licence, nor had he applied for one. He further acknowledged that he had no written agreement with the accused persons and had not paid any fee for permission to mine.
Defence argument
Appiah-Kubi argued that his client’s decision to permit the two individuals to mine on the concession did not amount to an assignment of mineral rights.
“Permission is a licence or authorisation to do something on another person’s property without transferring any proprietary rights.
“An assignment, on the other hand, involves the transfer of proprietary rights themselves. The distinction is critical and well-established in law,” counsel submitted.
He maintained that the prosecution’s failure to adduce evidence of an assignment was not a minor or technical lapse but a fundamental failure to prove an essential element of the alleged offences.
Counsel further contended that since the prosecution, through its witnesses, failed to provide evidence of any assignment, the charges of “assignment of mineral rights without approval” could not be sustained.
On the count of facilitating unlicensed mining, Appiah-Kubi argued that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that his clients engaged in acts constituting facilitation.
He submitted that the mere occurrence of unlicensed mining activities on a concession held by his clients did not establish that they purposely facilitated such operations.
“The prosecution must prove positive acts of facilitation, and it has failed to do so,” he said.
Counsel also argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused persons had actual knowledge that Ayisi and Okum were unlicensed miners.
The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai, is yet to file its response to the submission of no case.
The matter has been adjourned to March 10, 2026.
Submission of no case
A submission of no case is a right granted to accused persons under Section 173 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).
It allows an accused person to argue that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case, requiring them to open their defence.
If the trial court upholds the submission, the accused persons are discharged. If it is dismissed, they are required to open their defence.
Source:
www.graphic.com.gh