The Attorney-General has opposed an application for bail pending appeal filed by convicted businessman and New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi.
In a 13-paragraph affidavit filed at the Court of Appeal, the State argued that the grounds of appeal filed by Mr Boasiako do not disclose any reasonable prospect of success and, therefore, do not justify his release from custody.
The Attorney-General further contended that Mr Boasiako presents a significant flight risk and has failed to establish any special or exceptional circumstances that would warrant bail pending the determination of his appeal.
The Court of Appeal is expected to hear the bail application on August 19, 2026.
Mr Boasiako is seeking bail after the High Court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, convicted him on July 20, 2026, and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment with hard labour.
He was convicted for assigning mineral rights without the required prior approval of the sector minister.
His company, Akonta Mining Company Limited, was also convicted on two counts and fined GH¢180,000. Mr Boasiako was separately fined GH¢120,000, bringing the total fines imposed by the court to GH¢300,000.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Mr Boasiako filed a notice of appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. He subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for bail pending the outcome of the appeal.
The Attorney-General, however, has urged the appellate court to reject the application, insisting that the appeal itself is unlikely to succeed.
In the affidavit, deposed to by State Attorney Priscilla Lartey, the prosecution denied the factual assertions contained in Mr Boasiako’s affidavit in support of the bail application, except those expressly admitted.
The State specifically challenged the applicant’s claim that his appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
“By the grounds of appeal contained in Exhibit CB2… the appeal… discloses no reasonable chance of success,” the affidavit stated.
The Attorney-General also raised concerns over the possibility that Mr Boasiako could abscond if granted bail.
The State disputed the applicant’s assertion that he was not a flight risk and relied, in part, on comments allegedly made by his former lawyer during a television interview.
According to the prosecution, the former lawyer told the public that, but for his “intense management” of Mr Boasiako’s conduct, the applicant had previously been determined to resist arrest or breach his bail conditions.
The Attorney-General has attached a recording of the interview to the affidavit as Exhibit AG1, arguing that it supports the State’s assessment of Mr Boasiako as a flight risk.
The prosecution further argued that the risk is heightened by other criminal proceedings pending against the applicant.
According to the State, Mr Boasiako could face additional lengthy prison terms if he is convicted in those cases.
The Attorney-General also rejected the argument that Mr Boasiako’s physical presence is necessary for his lawyers to prepare his appeal.
The State maintained that the trial has effectively ended and that, given the grounds of appeal filed, there is no need for the applicant to be physically present for counsel to prepare written submissions.
The prosecution also challenged Mr Boasiako’s claim of good character.
The State pointed to what it described as the applicant’s “several brushes with the law” and argued that those circumstances weigh against his claim.
On the issue of special circumstances, the Attorney-General maintained that the bail application had failed to establish any circumstances sufficiently exceptional to warrant his release.
The State has consequently urged the Court of Appeal to exercise its discretion to summarily dismiss the bail application.
The application will come before the Court of Appeal on August 19, when the parties are expected to present their arguments.
Until the court rules on the application, Mr Boasiako remains in custody serving the sentence imposed by the High Court.
The bail application is separate from the substantive appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal will determine the merits of that appeal independently of its decision on whether to grant bail.
