The first defence witness in the Samreboi concession trial has told the court that verbal permission cannot amount to the assignment of mineral rights under Ghana’s mining laws.
Wisdom Edem Gomashie, who on Thursday, May 14, 2026 testified as an expert mining engineer for Chairman Wontumi and the other accused persons, said Ghana’s legal framework governing mining operations requires formal procedures and approvals before mineral rights can be transferred or assigned.
Relying on the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), and the Minerals and Mining (Licensing) Regulations, 2012 (L.I. 2176), the witness said he reviewed the charge sheet and concluded that a valid assignment of mineral rights could not be based on verbal discussions.
He told the court that the assignment of mineral rights constituted a formal legal transaction and, therefore, could not be created through informal or verbal exchanges.
According to him, any transfer or assignment involving mineral rights must comply with laid-down procedures, including authorisation by the minister responsible for mines.
Chairman Wontumi and his company are facing six counts relating to allegations that they permitted Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi to mine on the company’s concession without prior ministerial approval, while also facilitating unlicensed mining activities.
The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and are currently on bail pending the determination of the case.
The defence team, led by lawyer Andy Appiah-Kubi, has argued that Chairman Wontumi’s decision to allow the two individuals to operate on the concession did not amount to an assignment of mineral rights because there was no written agreement.
The prosecution, however, maintains that a transfer does not cease to be a transfer merely because it was not reduced into writing.
According to the prosecution, once a mineral rights holder grants another person the right to exploit minerals on a concession, a transfer has effectively taken place, regardless of whether the arrangement was formalised in writing.
During cross-examination, the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, challenged the witness’s interpretation of the law, insisting that the expert opinion was not properly grounded.
However, Gomashie maintained that his position was consistent with the legal requirements governing mining licences and mineral rights administration.
He added that mining lease holders often engaged service providers to undertake operational activities, but such arrangements did not necessarily amount to the assignment of mineral rights.
Earlier in his evidence-in-chief, the witness identified his witness statement and signature before the document was tendered in evidence.
However, under further cross-examination, several inconsistencies emerged in the sworn statement.
Dr Srem-Sai pointed to discrepancies relating to the witness’s academic qualifications and the institutions he claimed to have attended.
The court heard that although the witness was born in April 1993, his statement indicated that he obtained his first degree in 1998.
The witness statement also suggested that he obtained his Master’s degree from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, although he later clarified that the qualifications were actually obtained from the University of Mines and Technology and the University of Ghana.
The witness admitted that the errors were mistakes and typographical inaccuracies.
“So it is not true when you told the court that you had a Master of Science Degree in Minerals and Economics in 2003,” the Deputy Attorney-General asked.
The witness responded that it was a typographical error.
The court subsequently allowed the witness to correct the errors in the statement to clarify his credentials.
-Graphic-