Chairman Wontumi's lawyer seeks Supreme Court interpretation of Minerals and Mining Act

Counsel wants the Supreme Court to determine whether, on a true and proper interpretation of Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, Section 14(1) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), one of the provisions underpinning the charges against his client, is legally vague, overbroad and inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the said article, and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

He also wants a determination on whether, on the same constitutional test, Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703, as amended by Section 3 of the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995), and which likewise forms the basis of some of the charges, is legally overbroad and inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Article 19(11), and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

A further question seeks a ruling on whether the charges in counts four and six against A1 and A3, which were founded solely on Section 99(2)(b) of Act 703 as amended, are themselves inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Article 19(11), and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.