Legal practitioner Wilberforce Asare has questioned the High Court’s reliance on circumstantial evidence in the conviction of Akonta Mining owner and Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, arguing that the evidence cited fell short of the legal threshold required for such cases.
Speaking on the Asaase Breakfast Show on Tuesday (21 July), Asare said he had “a fundamental problem” with the trial judge’s approach, contending that circumstantial evidence must consist of several independent pieces of evidence that collectively point to guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“The use of circumstantial evidence in this matter was far-fetched,” Asare said.
According to him, the court appeared to rely primarily on conflicting testimonies from two witnesses, a basis he said was insufficient to establish circumstantial evidence.
“If the judge was going to use circumstantial evidence, then it was not sufficient to use what one person said against what another person said,” he said.
“In my candid view, one person’s word against another person’s word will not be sufficient to accrue circumstantial evidence.”
Asare argued that the court ought to have examined other surrounding facts that could independently support its conclusions, including who benefited financially from the alleged illegal mining activities, who received proceeds from the mining operations and whether evidence relating to land reclamation and agricultural activities supported the prosecution’s case.
He said such evidence, when considered together, could properly constitute circumstantial evidence if it pointed irresistibly to the guilt of the accused.
“The question should have been: who benefited from the alleged crime? Did the proceeds go to Wontumi or did they go elsewhere? Who harvested the coconuts? Who sold them? Who enjoyed the money?” he asked.
To illustrate his point, Asare referred to a previous rape case in which the court relied on several independent pieces of evidence—including medical findings, physical exhibits recovered from the crime scene and witness testimony—to arrive at a conviction.
He said that unlike that case, he believed the Wontumi judgment did not demonstrate the combination of multiple corroborating facts typically associated with circumstantial evidence.
“You cannot use one person’s word against another person’s word and conclude that you have established circumstantial evidence. It must be multiple pieces of evidence coming from different sources, added together to prove a case,” he said.
Despite his criticism, Asare acknowledged that the High Court’s judgment remains legally binding unless overturned on appeal.
Wontumi’s lawyers have indicated they intend to challenge both the conviction and sentence before the Court of Appeal, where the legal reasoning adopted by the trial court is expected to come under close scrutiny.
Source: asaaseradio.com
