Detective Chief Inspector Eugene Akpor Glover, the investigator and third prosecution witness in the trial of Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has told the High Court that Wontumi was the critical culprit uncovered in the investigations into illegal mining in the Tano Nimiri Forest.
Testifying under further cross-examination before Justice Ruby Aryeetey, D Chief Inspector Akpo Glover insisted that his investigations did not show that the accused, referred to as A2, was supporting legal mining.
Instead, he said, the evidence showed that A1 (Akonta Mining) and A2 (Wontumi) were conducting illegal mining in the forest.
Akonta Mining Company Limited (A1), Chairman Wontumi (A2), Kwame Antwi (A3), and Kwadwo Owusu Bempah A5 (at large) have been charged variously for their roles in the illegal mining activities in the Tano Nimire Forest Reserve.
They have pleaded not guilty to their respective charges of the seven counts, including one bthree of Undertaking a mining operation without a licence.
Akonta Mining, as a company, is also facing charges of felling trees in a Forest Reserve without written authority from the competent forest authority and erecting buildings in a Forest Reserve without written authority from the competent forest authority.
Chairman Wontumi is personally facing two separate counts of abetting the unauthorised felling of trees in a Forest Reserve, contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Forest Protection Act, 1974 (NRCD 243), as amended by Section 1 of the Forest Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 624), and Section 20(1) of the Criminal Act, 1960 (Act 29).
They have pleaded not guilty and have been granted bail.
Testifying on Monday, October 26, 2026, the witness, who said he has served with the Police Service for 17 years, told the court that he inherited an uncompleted investigation into the matter.
He said he studied it thoroughly before continuing and found nothing in it that he decided to change.
“A2 is the critical culprit of the investigations,” he told the court.
Asked by Counsel for the Accused Samuel Atta Akyea, whether the investigations revealed that A2 (Wontumi) never personally used any machine in the Tano Nimiri Forest, the Witness agreed.
“That is correct, A2 never used any machine personally in the Tano Nimiri Forest, but aided with mining equipment in the forest, notable is PW1 and PW2,” he said.
Counsel for the accused, Samuel Atta Akyea, put it to him that agents sometimes act contrary to the instructions of their principals. The witness disagreed in this case.
“Yes, in this instant case, agents of A1 acted on the instructions of A1 and A2 and in the interest and benefit of A1 and A2,” he said.
He was also asked whether he was personally privy to any instructions A1 and A2 gave to PW1 and PW2 in relation to the forest.
He said, “I am privy to an instruction where A2 instructed PW2 to mount barriers and side poles in Tano Nimiri Forest in the cautioned statement of A2 on June 7, 2023.”
When counsel suggested that his understanding of the case was based on second-hand information from PW2, the witness rejected the suggestion.
“That is not correct. My understanding of this case is as a result of various methods of investigation the police conducted. They include interviews of witnesses, crime scene visitation or site inspections, drone surveillance and review of documents,” he said.
Counsel Atta Akyea argued that drone activity could not have told him what transpired between PW2 and A2.
The witness though conceded that point, said the drone surveillance helped him with his understanding of the case.
Counsel further suggested that he had no evidence to depend on as to the instructions between A2 and PW2. The witness disagreed.
“In addition to A2’s caution statements, sometime in April 2021, A2 caused PW1 to write a letter to the Western Regional Coordinating Council seeking assistance to drive away illegal miners from the concession. A copy of the letter was personally given to the police by A2 when he was being interrogated,” he said.
Mr Atta Akyea suggested that the letter should show the court that A2 was against illegal mining. The witness replied: “That is entirely not correct.”
He was also asked whether the presence of barriers and signposts on a concession does not equate to illegal mining. He agreed generally, but added a qualification for this case.
“In this instant case, the barriers and signposts were mounted to protect the interest of A1 and A2 to protect their work at Tano Forest, which is illegal mining. I must say that between August and September 2022, security personnel from Akonta Mining took control of the forest and restricted forestry guards and other officials from entering the forest. In the course of our investigation, Forestry Commission officers and other officials who were lawfully mandated to conduct business in the forest were compelled to seek permission from management of Akonta Mining before they could enter the forest, on condition that their phones would be taken away from them. This is evidence in the police report to CID and IGP,” he said.
When it was suggested to him that the evidence was that it was rather A1 and A2 who were preventing illegal miners from entering the Tano Forest, DCI Glover said: “That is not correct.
Instead, I gathered clear and convincing evidence that A1 and A2 were rather conducting illegal mining in the Tano Forest, and this is supported by all the evidence I have tendered in this court.”
He also rejected a suggestion that in his 17 years of service he merely believed whatever he was told without finding evidence for it.
“That is not correct. Instead, I have told this court before that all evidence tendered in this court were duly verified and proved authentic,” he said.
Counsel further asked why he could not find the alleged head of security who was said to have prevented Forestry Commission officials from entering the forest.
The witness agreed that the head of security is currently at large, but said all other evidence corroborates the narrative, including a TV video tendered in evidence.
The case has been adjourned to October 27, 2026 for continuation.
