Boss of National Petroleum Authority (NPA) Edudzi Tamakloe has defended the evidential basis of the Chairman Wontumi judgment, arguing that the trial court relied on testimony that was not successfully challenged during proceedings.
Tamakloe referred to portions of witness statements and oral testimony discussed during the trial, particularly evidence relating to the role of Henry Okoe on the mining concession.
He noted that Chairman Wontumi’s witness statement maintained Henry Okoe had only been granted permission to undertake land reclamation and not mining activities.
However, Tamakloe said Henry Okoe’s testimony disputed that account, claiming the arrangement involved mining operations and that no money had been provided for reclamation work.
“The testimony was never controverted,” Tamakloe said on TV3, arguing that the evidence remained on the court record without being effectively challenged during cross-examination.
He added that another prosecution witness acknowledged that Chairman Wontumi never visited the mining site after assigning the work, a point Tamakloe said was also reflected in the court proceedings.
According to him, those pieces of evidence formed part of the material considered by the trial judge in arriving at the verdict.
Tamakloe further argued that the legal standard in criminal proceedings is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not what he described as “fanciful doubt.”
“The rule of law has always been beyond reasonable doubt, not fanciful doubt,” he stated.
