Atta Akyea Blasts Judge Kocuvie-Tay Over Wontumi’s Sentence; Vows to Expose Gaps in 20-Year Conviction

Samuel Atta Akyea, lead counsel for the jailed Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has pushed back against High Court Judge Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, who handed down a 20-year sentence to the regional chairman.

He insists the ruling was not founded on law and evidence. “Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay was in an ambulance mood to convict Wontumi, but we will expose the poverty in her judgement,” he said.

Constitutional issues
Speaking on Joy FM on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, the seasoned lawyer said it was difficult to comprehend how the trial court dismissed constitutional issues raised by the defence, describing the decision as “an aberration of justice.”

“I raised constitutional issues for the consideration of the judge, but they were ignored. We will test these matters before the appellate courts,” he stated.

Appeal
Insisting that the legal team will appeal the judgement at the Court of Appeal, he added that, if necessary, they would proceed to the Supreme Court. “We will exercise every right available under the law. If we are unsuccessful at the Court of Appeal, we will proceed to the Supreme Court. We will use every legal avenue available to ensure that justice is done,” he added.

Gaps
Mr Atta Akyea argued that a review of the prosecution’s case revealed significant gaps that could not justify the judgement. “I can tell you something which is very consequential. Looking at the poverty of the prosecution’s case, I do not see how this judgement is founded on law and evidence,” he said.

No direct evidence
Mr Atta Akyea maintained that the prosecution failed to produce direct evidence showing that Chairman Wontumi unlawfully assigned his mining concession or received any financial benefit from the alleged transaction.

He further indicated that the prosecution witnesses never testified that the NPP chairman transferred mineral rights to them or demanded payment in exchange for access to the concession. “Today we’re talking about an assignment of a mining right. On whose mere say-so? The man has not said, ‘Give me 250,000 US dollars and I will give you the concession.’ They didn’t testify to that. They never said he wanted money from them,” he stated.

He explained that the evidence before the court showed only that the individuals had been permitted to undertake land reclamation works and establish coconut plantations after the reclamation. “If the two individuals who became the prosecution’s witnesses went on illegal mining, how do you attribute their criminal activities to Chairman Wontumi?” he queried.