Wontumi Case: Atta Akyea Accuses High Court of Usurping Supreme Court’s Constitutional Powers (VIDEO)
Lead counsel for New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, Samuel Atta Akyea, has argued that the High Court exceeded its mandate by interpreting constitutional issues that, according to him, should have been referred to the Supreme Court.
Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile, hosted by Samson Lardi Anyenini, Mr Atta Akyea maintained that a High Court should not assume the role of the Supreme Court when constitutional interpretation questions arise during a trial.
“It is important to come to terms with the fact that a High Court should never graduate into the Supreme Court when there are constitutional interpretations borne out by the trial,” he stated.
His comments follow the conviction and 20-year prison sentence imposed on Chairman Wontumi by the Accra High Court in a case involving illegal mining activities on the Samreboi concession in the Western Region.
Mr Atta Akyea argued that the trial judge erred by refusing to refer constitutional questions raised by the defence to the Supreme Court for determination.
According to him, the defence had argued that provisions of the Minerals Act conflicted with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, particularly regarding whether the law clearly defined the offence and the corresponding punishment.
He said the disagreement between the defence and the attorney-general created a constitutional interpretation issue that only the Supreme Court had the authority to resolve.
“The defence is asserting that the law sins against Article 19(11), because the law is not clearly defined, the Minerals Act, as to the criminal matter vis-à-vis the penal consequences of those things. Make a referral to the Supreme Court for the Supreme Court to interpret,” he explained.
Mr Atta Akyea further argued that by determining the issue herself, the trial judge effectively exercised powers reserved for the apex court.
“For my part, this is a ground of appeal: that the judge usurped the interpretation powers of the Supreme Court and, to that extent, became the Supreme Court and interpreted a matter that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret,” he said.
The lawyer referred to the Ezzanotto case and other authorities cited by the judge, arguing that those decisions actually supported the position that lower courts should not readily assume constitutional interpretation powers where conflicting meanings exist.
He explained that while High Court judges have discretion in deciding whether a matter requires a referral to the Supreme Court, that discretion must be exercised within constitutional boundaries.
Mr Atta Akyea rejected suggestions that his argument meant trial judges must automatically send every constitutional claim to the Supreme Court.
He said the issue arises only where competing interpretations of constitutional provisions and relevant laws exist.
“Where the consequential interpretations are before the judge, the power to interpret the Constitution, when there are rival meanings, is not reserved for the trial judge,” he stated.
He maintained that the question before the court was not merely about applying existing law but interpreting whether the law complied with constitutional requirements, especially regarding criminal offences and penalties.
According to him, the absence of a clearly stated link between an alleged offence and its punishment raised a constitutional concern under Article 19(11), which guarantees that a person cannot be convicted for an offence unless the act and penalty are clearly prescribed by law.
Mr Atta Akyea indicated that the issue forms part of the grounds of appeal being pursued by Chairman Wontumi’s legal team.
Click the link Puretvonline.com | WhatsApp Channel to join the WhatsApp channel
Contact/WhatsApp: +233243201960 or manuelnkansah33@gmail.com
