NPP Supporters React with Outrage Over Chairman Wontumi’s 20-Year Prison Sentence | Discuss Ghana

Waves of anger, disbelief, and vocal protest erupted among supporters of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) following the High Court’s decision to sentence Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako (Chairman Wontumi) to 20 years' imprisonment with hard labor in the Samreboi illegal mining case.

Crowds of party faithful gathered outside the court premises and took to social media to voice their frustration, arguing that the sentence handed down by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay is disproportionately harsh for environmental and mining-related infractions.

“Chairman Wontumi hasn’t killed anyone. Twenty years is too much,” several visibly aggrieved supporters declared outside the courthouse. “Who has Chairman Wontumi killed to deserve two decades behind bars? People commit far worse crimes and walk free. This is excessive and politically targeted.”

Outcry Across the Grassroots

The custodial sentence—one of the sternest ever meted out under the amended Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703)—has sent shockwaves through the opposition party's grassroots base:

Political Targeting Allegations: Party youth groups and local organizers claimed the prosecution and severe sentence were designed to politically weaken the NPP's influential Ashanti Regional apparatus.

Calls for Executive Intervention: Some party supporters urged the national leadership of the NPP to immediately file an appeal and explore legal and constitutional remedies to review the verdict.

Protest Warning: Activists in Kumasi and Accra warned of prospective demonstrations, insisting that environmental compliance laws should focus on civil penalties, site reclamation, and regulatory fines rather than long-term incarceration for business leaders.

Legal Team Moves to File Appeal

In response to the public outcry and the verdict, Chairman Wontumi's legal team, led by Samuel Atta Akyea, confirmed that they are preparing an expedited appeal. The defense maintains that the court erred in its interpretation of Section 14(1) of Act 703 regarding the verbal assignment of mineral rights and intends to challenge both the conviction and the severity of the sentence at the Court of Appeal.