THE LAW 101: Inside the Defence Address for Wontumi & Akonta Mining (Part IV)

Authorities relied upon To urge the High Court to stay judgment and refer the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 130(2), the Defence cited Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution: "No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law.

Key issues set down for determination The written address submitted on behalf of A1 and A3 framed the entire trial around three major legal and factual controversies: The preliminary constitutional issue: Whether Sections 14(1) and 99(2)(b) of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), as amended by Act 995, violate the principle of legality under Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution for vagueness and overbreadth, requiring a mandatory reference to the Supreme Court under Article 130(2)." Issue 2: Offence of assignment without approval (Counts 1 & 3) Facts and evidential gaps identified The Defence established that Akonta Mining Company Limited (A3) holds a valid 10-year mining lease over the Samreboi concession (Exhibit G).