It is very important to emphasize that Mr Henry Okum and others were arrested by NAIMOS on 27 April 2025, in the second regime of His Excellency President Mahama for illegal mining activities in the Concession of Chairman Wontumi around Sambreboi, hence herein as Sambreboi case.

It is very important to also, emphasize that the Sambreboi case is not connected to a report on the alleged illegal mining activities at the Tano Nemeri Forest by Dr Ken Asiagbey, now the CEO of Ghana Chamber of Mines and others.

So, the Sambreboi case should not be confused or misunderstood with his activities in the Tano Nemeri Forest Reserve, which was the Site the then sector Minister in the Regime of President Nana Addo, namely Mr Hon Abu Tneukpor claimed that he was not granted mining rights nor prospecting rights by him.

Chairman Wontumi, as the Rightful or legal holder mining rights of the Sambreboi Concession, was unfortunately sent to prison due to a breach of Section 14 (1) of Minerals and Mining Act 2006 Act (703) . Due to the assigning the area to another Ghanaian, without the written approval or consent of the sector minister. He was not involved in illegal mining activities.

Consequently, all lawful players in the Mining Sector especially Ghanaians like, my brother Dr Ibrahim Mahama of Engineers and Planners (E&P), Dr Kwabena Duffour of Bogoso Mine, Mr Ofori Opuko of Ghana Bauxite, Ms Angela Atieh of Adamus Resources as well their compatriots or and Directors of Mining Companie of the Ghana Chamber of Mines need to think twice on this case.

They must smartly fight/pray for the declaration of the action of the High Court as both illegal and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Ghana or an International Court of Justice.

This is so, due to the mismatched usage of Section 99 of Act 703 under Small Scale Mining governed from Sections 81 to 99 to punish him for a simple breach of Section 14 (1) under Large Scale Mining governed from Sections from 1 to 80, which cure is duly provided at Sections 106 to 112, as Administrative Offence under Administration Offences Chapter of Act 703 covering sections 106 to 108. Thus, strictly under Ministerial Jurisdiction, hence outside the Jurisdiction of a High Court.

As far as the Mining Laws of Ghana as provided or governed by the Minerals and Mining Act 2006 (Act 703) are concerned which must be in consonance with the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, herein with Article 19 (11) of the Constitution.

Consequently, a breach of Section 14(1) of Act 703, must not send a Holder of Mining Rights to prison repeat must not send a Holder of Mining Rights to prison by the State, by mismatching or linking the breach of Act 14 (1) with or to Act 99 of Act 703 respectively due to missteps by Chairman Wontumi, which has led to the sending him to prison or in order to send him to prison.

Thus, the matter gives the wrongful acts by the State Officials, a seemingly political twist or colorization or undertone, hence Chairman Wontumi may be perceived in the minds of a reasonable person, as a Political Prisoner. Otherwise, the integrity of the State Officials,

may be questionable.
This very bad or heavy legal and judicial precedent for Corporate and Personal Liability must not be allowed to stay in Ghana’s law books by key players in the Mining Sector. So, Dr Ibrahim Mahama of E&P, Dr Kwabena Duffour of Bogoso Mine, Mr Ofori Opuko of Ghana Bauxite, Ms Angela Atieh of Adamus Resources and others must stand up against such a dangerous precedent.

The fire on the beard of Chairman Wontumi should be seen as a very serious one, that is a potential future fire on their beards. So, the mentioned Ghanaian players in the Mining Sector or the Directors of Large-Scale Mining Companies or Member Companies of the Ghana Chambers of Mines, especially Ms Angela Atieh of Adamus Resources, who is the VP of the Ghana Chamber of Mine must no go to sleep.

They should rather work hard with the lawyer of Chairman Wontumi to fetch water to quench the fire on the beard of Chairman Wontumi in order to kill this very bad law (precedent), a potential fire or inferno in the Mining Sector.

Since, by Mining Laws of Ghana, a simple breach of Act 14 (1) of Act 703 by a legal Mining Rights or Mining Concession/ Lease Holder should not on mother earth especially in Ghana resulted in the consideration of any reasonable persons as a matter under a criminal offence, hence within the jurisdiction of a High Court to send a holder of the Mining Rights, herein Chairman Wontumi to a very long imprisonment of 20 years.

The Chairman Wontumi very long imprisonment of 20 years is an absurdity in law especially when the matter is an agreement between the Holder of Mining Rights and the State through the Minerals Commission as provided under Article 268 of the Constitution.

Hence, when a matter in the Mining Sector is not able to be resolved by both parties to an agreement, the next forum for an Arbitration in the jurisdiction of International Arbitration Court otherwise the original jurisdiction Supreme Court of Ghana.

A breach of Act 14 (1) of Act 703 by a legal Holder of Mining Rights or Mining Concession is strictly an administrative offence, as such, strictly as a Ministerial jurisdiction as provided under Administration and Miscellaneous of Minerals and Mining Act 2006 Act (703). Under the Administration and Miscellaneous chapter are the provisions of offences and penalties (a fine of Five Thousand Dollars payable in Cedis) as legally stated from Sections 106 to 112 to cure any breach of holder of a Mining Lease.

In the case of a breach of transfer rule by a Licensed Small-Scale Miner, the Minister is granted at Section 87 of Act 703 to only revoke the License of the Licensee, in case of a breach of Section 88 of Act 703 for transfer to another Ghanaian without consent of the sector minister.

When an unapproved transfer rule by a holder of Large-Scale Mining Lease and License of Small-Scale Mining, is a subject of dispute, the sector minister is mandatorily required to also use provisions of Minerals and Mining Licensing Regulation 2012 (LI2176) to deal with operational risks or administrative offences in case of any breach of the terms and condition of the Mining Rights.

Hence, by the courtesy of Her Ladyship Mrs Araba Torkunoo, a former Chief Justice of Ghana, the Law is the Law, so the High Court has no jurisdiction in the breach of Section 14 (1) by Chairman Wontumi. The candidates for criminal offence, thus in the jurisdiction of the High are Mr Henry Okum and others, who were wrongly used as Prosecution Witnesses.

Consequently, the Office of the Attorney General (AG) or the Prosecutor and the High Court or the very respected and honorable Judge have both breached Article 19 (11) of the Constitution, an entrenched provision on how an offence must always correspond to the penalties as defined in law and nothing else. The Law is the Law and the Constitution is what the letter and spirits of the Constitution or the Supreme Court say what the law or the Constitution says what it is.

Hence, the actions of the AG and the Judge or the affected officials in the Justice System to send Chairman Wontumi into long imprisonment at all cost are very grievous stated misbehavior, just to imprison Chairman Wontumi, at all cost. Hence both the AG and hmm may be our dear respected Judge may be Candidates for removal from Office.

This is a very important requirement of all new citizens of the Reset or Better Ghana Agenda of His Excellency President JD Mahama, to ensure that State Officials work according to the provisions of the laws of Ghana, especially the provisions of the 1992 Constitution by upholding, preserving, defending and protecting the Constitution.

Thus, all new citizens of the Reset or Better Ghana Agenda must not allow State officials to usurp the ministerial jurisdiction or powers, so granted to a sector minister. Hence, a State Official must not be allowed to act in his or her whims and caprices or work to satisfy public opinions or emotions as part of populism tendencies. Not acceptable in a Democratic Dispensation with the Rule of the Law.

The victim of their stated misbehavior, namely Chairman Wontumi should fight for Compensation from the State, especially from the Sector Ministry for negligence of duty of care as per agreement reached between both parties (the Mining Right Holder and the Regulator or the Administrator of Mining Rights as provided in Act 703 especially Section 106 to Section 108 of Act 703 otherwise at Section 5 and Section 87 of Act 703 or Section 251 of Minerals and Mining Licensing Regulation 2012 (LI2176).

My dear brother Dr Ibrahim Mahama of Engineers and Planners (E&P), Dr Kwabena Duffour of Bogoso Mine, Mr Ofori Opuko of Ghana Bauxite, Ms Angela Atieh of Adamus Resources as well as other Directors of Mining Companie of the Ghana Chamber of Mines must note that the key legal implications include (a). Operational risk, since a standard administrative missteps or unapproved actions like what happened to Chairman Wontumi, risk being treated as criminal offences (b). Personal accountability; It should be noted that the Chairman Won Tumi’s case implies that owners of concessions can no longer hide behind corporate entity shields, that is if unlawful mining occurs under their watch.

The situation has therefore created precedent accountability with the strict or wrong interpretation of Directors liability, thus making official Corporate Directors to face higher legal and enforcement scrutiny from the State. As such, concession holders or mining companies must tighten oversight over partners, subcontractors, joint venture and encroachers of the Concession.

So, they must rise to the occasion to kill the illegal or wrongful Linking of Section 14(1) of Act 703 which regulates formal Large Scale Mining concession matters on Transfer, Assignment, Mortgage, Merging matters with Section 99 of Act 703 on offences and penalties under Small Scale Mining and scouted for a criminal punishment at Section 99 of Act 703 to punish Chairman Wontumi, negates Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution and sections 106 and 108 of Act 703 of Minerals and Mining Act 2006 (Act 703). .

There is the need to educate the Public on the two main offences, namely (1). Criminal Offence and (2) Administrative Offence. The two are different based on the principle of in dubio pro reo means that when there is doubt, the decision must favor the accused. It works directly with the presumption of innocence and the rule that the State or the prosecutor must prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The presumption of innocence as applicable to only in criminal offence, this does not imply for administrative offence. In an administrative offence, a separate penalty is imposed for each offence and not summing them in criminal offence.

Criminal Offence meaning a major act that harms society and breaks the criminal law, example theft, murder, rape etc, the prosecuting and sentencing authorities are separate, need to proof the guilt beyond reasonable doubt to be decided by a High Court or Military Court Marshal in the Military and by a full trial with the Court Marshal sharing the same powers of a High Court.

Criminal punishment include death, hard prison time, long jail stays, court fines, and the affected person leaves the prison etc. with a permanent criminal record.

On the other hand, Administrative Offence, meaning a minor breach of public rules or local rules to be decided by State Offices, the prosecuting and sentencing authority is the same person or are identical and not a criminal court, it only requires substantial evidence, often based on simple reports or direct checks without long trial.

Administrative Punishment include a cash fines, or warning, or cancellation or revocation of a special permit, and not allowed to hold any public office until after 10 years, no criminal record, against the person. Example ln the civil sector was the very sad Apiate Bogoso explosion disaster on 22 January 2022 involving a Service Provider in the mining sector.

For the tragic Appiate-Bogoso explosion, the government of Ghana punished the responsible company, Maaxam Ghana Ltd with a $6 million total financial penalty ($1 million administrative fine for regulatory breaches and $5 million allocated toward support and damages), alongside a temporary suspension of their operating license etc.

So, by Clause 11 of Article 19 of the Constitution, it was wrong by the Prosecution team to use Section 14 of Minerals and Mining Act 2006 (Act 703) which falls between Section 1 and Section 80 of Act 703, which govern the Large Scale Mining Sector as an offence allegedly committed by a licensed Small Scale Miner, herein Chairman Wontumi, who operated in the Small Scale Mining Sector, which is duly governed with Section 81 to Section 99 of Act 703.