The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, has rejected claims that the prosecution and conviction of Ashanti Regional New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, were politically motivated, insisting that the case originated during the previous NPP administration.
Speaking on Gold Morning Conversation with Sena Nombo on Tuesday, July 22, 2026, Dr. Srem-Sai disclosed that investigations into the case commenced in 2021, when the NPP was in government, arguing that the timeline undermines allegations of selective or politically driven prosecution.
“The Wontumi investigation started in 2021 when the NPP was in office. Investigation takes time. It began then, and he was only convicted last week,” he said.
He explained that the Attorney-General’s Office deliberately streamlined the prosecution by reducing the number of charges, accused persons and witnesses to improve efficiency and maximise the prospects of securing convictions with fewer resources.
According to him, the prosecution’s case was significantly strengthened after two of the accused persons entered into plea bargain arrangements and agreed to testify for the State.
“They asked to be converted to prosecution witnesses. In exchange, they will forfeit their excavators and other valuable properties in order to testify,” he stated.
Dr. Srem-Sai commended the Ghana Police Service, the Criminal Investigations Department, the Minerals Commission and state attorneys for what he described as their professionalism and dedication throughout the investigation and prosecution.
Responding to criticism from the NPP that the prosecution was selective, the Deputy Attorney-General maintained that the duration of the investigation demonstrated that due process, rather than political considerations, informed the prosecution.
“The specific directive from the Attorney General was given between July and August last year. So if they are comparing the speed, then clearly they cannot talk about partial treatment based on delay,” he argued.
Touching on the legal issues raised during the trial, Dr. Srem-Sai explained that the prosecution relied on the legal doctrine of lifting the corporate veil, which allows company directors to be held personally liable where evidence shows they used a company to commit criminal acts.
“A company can commit a crime, but directors are personally responsible. Evidence showed Wontumi was running the company personally. Without this principle, people would commit crimes through companies and go free,” he explained.
He also defended the trial judge’s refusal to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for constitutional interpretation, saying judges have the discretion to determine whether a constitutional question genuinely arises before making such a referral.
“Not every constitutional issue must be referred. That delays trials. Judges have discretion to decide if a question is genuine,” he said.
Dr. Srem-Sai further disclosed that Chairman Wontumi’s lead counsel was absent when judgment was delivered because he was attending his daughter’s graduation in the United Kingdom. Although junior lawyers appeared on behalf of the defence, the court proceeded with the delivery of its judgment.
He expressed confidence that the remaining proceedings in the case, expected to conclude on Wednesday, would not produce any unexpected developments.
Story by: Ruth Quaye
