Wontumi's Appeal Grounds Revealed - Lead Counsel Speaks Out

The defence team of Bernard Antwi Boasiako, Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), plans to challenge his conviction at the Court of Appeal on more than 20 grounds of appeal.

Samuel Atta Akyea, lead counsel for Chairman Wontumi, said the appeal will focus on what he described as fundamental constitutional and legal errors that undermined the High Court proceedings. He explained that the first ground of appeal is a constitutional imperative that the trial judge was bound to make a reference to the Supreme Court for the determination of critical issues.

Speaking on JoyFM's Top Story on Tuesday, July 21, Mr. Atta Akyea disclosed that the defence team has identified several key issues to be raised in the appeal. He mentioned that one of the principal issues is the trial judge's refusal to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court before delivering judgment.

"So far we've assembled no less than 20 grounds of appeal," Mr. Atta Akyea said. The first one is a constitutional imperative that Her Ladyship was bound to make a reference to the Supreme Court for the determination of critical issues.

The case raised constitutional questions under Articles 130 and 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, as well as provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act, which Mr. Atta Akyea argued fall within the exclusive interpretative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Citing the Akosah case as precedent, Mr. Atta Akyea argued that where parties advance rival interpretations of constitutional provisions, the issues must be determined by the Supreme Court. "Even the very authority that she cited in the judgment is aware rival meanings are placed on the Constitution by the parties," he stated.

The trial judge, according to Mr. Atta Akyea, exceeded her jurisdiction by determining the constitutional questions herself instead of referring them to the Supreme Court. "The court graduated itself into the Supreme Court to make a determination of constitutional matters," he said. "For me, that is a very fundamental error which can quash the entire decision because the power to interpret the Constitution is not vested in a High Court judge; it is with the Supreme Court."

No Legal Basis for Wontumi’s Conviction, Says Atta Akyea

Mr. Atta Akyea further contended that the charges against Chairman Wontumi failed to meet the constitutional requirement that criminal offences and their corresponding penalties be clearly defined. "It was not a question of statutory construction," he explained. "It was a constitutional interpretation as to whether the offence, as formulated, met the requirements of Article 19(11), which says a person cannot be convicted unless the offence and its penalty are clearly defined."

The former Abuakwa South MP described the judge's refusal to refer the constitutional issues as a serious error that, in his view, compromised the entire trial. "I believe it's a very serious matter that the judge ignored," he said. "It seems to me that the judge was in an ambulance mood to convict the guy."

The defence team is confident that the Court of Appeal will give due consideration to the constitutional and procedural issues raised by the defence in determining whether the conviction should stand.

Source: Adom Online