Following the court’s judgement in the Bernard Antwi Bosiako, widely known as Wontumi’s Samreboi case, the Executive Director of the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP) is sounding a clear admonition that the courts must be careful not to accidentally rewrite the country’s mining laws while trying to punish illegal acts.
In his analysis of the verdict following the recent judgment in the case of Republic v. Bernard Antwi Boasiako and Others (the Akonta Mining case), Benjamin Boakye argues that while fighting the environmental devastation of illegal mining is urgent, the legal process should not bypass the specialized bodies Parliament built to oversee the industry.
The Experts First Argument
Ben Boakye points out that regulating mining is not just about catching criminals; it is a highly technical business that requires constant monitoring. He notes that “mining is one of Ghana’s most heavily regulated sectors.”
Because of this complexity, he explains that parliament deliberately gave the power to manage mineral rights to specialized institutions, which are primarily the Minerals Commission and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
These agencies are responsible for everything from issuing permits to conducting the daily inspections that keep mining companies in line.
Why Bypassing Regulators is Dangerous
The ACEP boss raises three major concerns regarding how judicial decisions might “reconfigure: the way mining is governed in Ghana:
Undermining Institutional Design
Ben Boakye warns that when judges interpret mining laws in a way that ignores the role of the Minerals Commission, they risk changing the entire governance system.
“This institutional framework reflects a legislative choice that mineral resource governance should be achieved primarily through continuous regulatory oversight rather than judicial intervention in the first instance. The State protects its interests not only by prosecuting offences after they occur, but also by preventing violations through permits, inspections, compliance directives, corrective measures and, where necessary, administrative sanctions,” he noted.
He added, “The courts remain the ultimate arbiters of legal disputes and criminal liability. However, where Parliament has entrusted day-to-day governance to specialised regulators, judicial interpretation should preserve rather than reconfigure that institutional design.”
Sanctions are Not a Substitute for Oversight
The ACEP boss further argues that court punishments should not be the only way the State manages its resources. According to Boakye, criminal sanctions are an essential part of the statutory framework, but they are intended to complement, not replace, continuous regulatory supervision by the mandated and specialized agencies.
“Criminal sanctions are an essential part of the statutory framework, but they are intended to complement, not replace, continuous regulatory supervision,” he added.
The Need for Technical Evidence
For a criminal trial to be fair and accurate, it needs to rely on the technical facts gathered by regulators.
Ben Boakye emphasizes that “criminal proceedings… should be informed by inspections, compliance assessments and enforcement records generated by those institutions” to ensure they are grounded in technical reality.
Protecting the Industry’s Future
For Ben Boakye, the verdict highlights a growing concern that if the courts begin treating “unlawful operational conduct” as a formal legal change in ownership (or assignment) without the required Ministerial approval, it could create chaos in the sector.
He notes that this could lead to frivolous claims against legitimate mining companies, which would be detrimental for investment and undermine certainty in the industry.
While Boakye makes it clear he does not question the need for accountability in the Akonta case, he concludes that Ghana must find a balance. He calls for a legal approach that combines “uncompromising enforcement against illegal mining” with “faithful adherence to the statutory architecture governing mineral rights.”
