By Daniel Bampoe
A dramatic legal battle unfolded at the Accra High Court on Monday when the court dismissed an application filed by lawyer Andy Appiah-Kubi seeking leave to withdraw his legal services to Ashanti Regional New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, and Wontumi Farms Limited in the high-profile Samreboi illegal mining case.
The ruling has introduced a fresh layer of legal intrigue into a trial that has already captured national attention and is expected to culminate in a judgment scheduled for July 3, 2026.
However, legal analysts say the court’s decision may have broader implications for the timeline of the case, depending on whether Appiah-Kubi ultimately decides to remain on record or formally withdraw through the appropriate legal procedure.
Background
Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining have been standing trial over allegations that they permitted unauthorized mining activities on a concession at Samreboi in the Western Region without obtaining the approvals required under the mining laws.
The Attorney-General’s Department alleges that mining operations were carried out on the concession by individuals including Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi without ministerial authorization.
The accused persons have consistently denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
After months of hearings, witness testimonies and legal arguments, both the prosecution and defence closed their cases, leaving the matter awaiting final written submissions and judgment.
The case has attracted widespread public interest due to Wontumi’s political prominence as Ashanti Regional Chairman of the NPP and his influence within the party’s grassroots structure.
The Withdrawal Application
The latest controversy emerged when Appiah-Kubi filed a motion seeking leave of the court to withdraw as counsel for the first and third accused persons.
When proceedings commenced, however, Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai immediately raised a preliminary legal objection challenging the competence of the application.
The prosecution argued that the motion was fundamentally flawed because criminal procedure does not require a defence lawyer to obtain the court’s permission before withdrawing from a case.
Justice Srem-Sai contended that while lawyers in civil proceedings may be required under specific rules to seek leave before withdrawing, no such requirement exists in criminal trials.
According to him, all that is required is for counsel to notify the client and formally update the court records.
The Deputy Attorney-General further argued that Appiah-Kubi lacked standing to file such a motion because he was not himself a party to the criminal proceedings.
“A court of law functions only within its jurisdiction,” Dr. Srem-Sai submitted. “The discretion to grant or refuse a lawyer’s decision to withdraw is not one that exists within the court’s jurisdiction in a criminal matter.”
The prosecution therefore asked the court to strike out the motion as incompetent.
Defence Pushes Back
Appiah-Kubi strongly opposed the prosecution’s arguments.
He maintained that as counsel on record for the accused persons, the court had recognized him throughout the proceedings and therefore had a legitimate interest in being informed of any decision to terminate his legal representation.
The veteran lawyer cited a recent Supreme Court ruling in the case involving former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and the Attorney-General, arguing that proper notice should be given to the court whenever legal representation is being withdrawn.
He further insisted that until his appointment as counsel was formally terminated, his interest in the matter remained active.
“My Lady, this court knows me as counsel for two of the accused persons,” Appiah-Kubi argued.
“The court reserves the right to know of the decision to withdraw such services.”
He also rejected suggestions that he lacked capacity or standing to file the application, stressing that his status as counsel on record remained unchanged.
Court Sides With Prosecution
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court briefly stood down the matter before delivering its ruling.
The court ultimately agreed with the Attorney-General’s position and dismissed the application.
The ruling effectively means that Appiah-Kubi does not require judicial approval to terminate his legal services in the case.
Instead, he may simply file a standard Notice of Withdrawal at the court registry and serve it on Chairman Wontumi and the other affected parties.
