Chairman Wontumi is facing a conviction that his legal team believes is fundamentally flawed. Lawyer Appiah-Kubi is preparing an appeal that focuses strictly on whether the evidence presented at trial actually supports the charges. This case centers on a critical question of legal liability and the facts of the record.
The conviction has sparked a wider debate about the motivations behind the trial. While some critics suggest the legal action is politically driven, Appiah-Kubi is pushing back against that narrative. He insists that the real issue isn’t about politics, but about the legal and evidential basis of the judgment.
A major point of contention involves the allegation that Wontumi personally assigned a mining concession. Appiah-Kubi argues the concession belonged to a corporate entity, not Wontumi himself. He cited a fundamental legal rule, stating, “The basic principle in law inemo dat. You cannot give what you do not have,” and noted that “the corporate body is different from a director or a shareholder.”
The upcoming appeal will ask the court to reassess the legal conclusions reached during the initial trial. Appiah-Kubi believes the court misinterpreted key portions of the evidence. He was blunt in his assessment, stating, “I agree that the evidence on record cannot support the verdict.”
When asked if Wontumi should be viewed as a political prisoner, the lawyer maintained a strict professional boundary. He argued that the records of the case don’t show political interference, but rather a failure of evidence. “I didn’t see any politics in the records, but what I’m saying is that the judgment cannot be supported by the evidence,” he explained.
