BY Daniel Bampoe
Former Abuakwa South Member of Parliament and seasoned legal practitioner, Samuel Atta Akyea, has shed light on the circumstances that led to his appointment as lead counsel for Ashanti Regional New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, insisting that one of his primary motivations was to prevent a legal vacuum in a case he describes as highly sensitive and consequential.
Speaking on Citi Eyewitness News on Monday, June 15, Atta Akyea explained that he considered it inappropriate for an accused person facing serious criminal charges to be left without legal representation at such a crucial stage of proceedings, particularly when the case is approaching its final phases.
According to the former legislator, the integrity of Ghana’s criminal justice system depends on ensuring that every accused person has access to adequate legal representation throughout the judicial process.
“I think this case is very sensitive. For him not to have legal representation at this stage will not sit well with the criminal justice delivery system,” Atta Akyea stated.
His remarks come in the wake of recent developments in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving Chairman Wontumi and Akonta Mining, where questions emerged over legal representation following the decision of former lead counsel Andy Appiah-Kubi to withdraw from the case.
Clarifying Appiah-Kubi’s Exit
Atta Akyea used the interview to dispel speculation that Appiah-Kubi had been dismissed by Chairman Wontumi.
According to him, the decision to leave the case originated from Appiah-Kubi himself and was communicated directly to his client before any discussions were held regarding replacement counsel.
“Andy had indicated to my latest client that he wanted to exit the case, so he was not fired. It was his voluntary announcement to Chairman Wontumi that, for some considerations, he did not see himself continuing with the case,” Atta Akyea explained.
The clarification comes after public debate over the circumstances surrounding Appiah-Kubi’s attempted withdrawal, which became the subject of legal arguments before the High Court.
Earlier, Appiah-Kubi had filed an application seeking leave to withdraw from the case. However, the court dismissed the application after the Attorney-General’s Department argued that a lawyer in a criminal trial does not require judicial permission to terminate legal representation.
The court agreed, holding that counsel could simply file the appropriate notice and serve the affected client.
Why Atta Akyea Accepted the Brief
Atta Akyea revealed that after learning of Appiah-Kubi’s intention to withdraw, Chairman Wontumi approached him to determine whether he would be willing to assume responsibility for the defence.
Although he agreed in principle, Atta Akyea said he wanted confirmation directly from Appiah-Kubi before formally accepting the case.
He noted that the possibility of Wontumi being left without counsel at a pivotal stage of the proceedings was a major factor influencing his decision.
“It is too sensitive a stage for him to be abandoned, and I can say that was one of the considerations that made me elect to help him,” he stated.
The lawyer emphasized that criminal proceedings often reach their most decisive moments during the stage where final legal arguments and written submissions are prepared and presented to the court.
Importance of Final Written Submissions
Atta Akyea stressed that legal representation becomes especially critical during the final stages of a criminal trial, where counsel are expected to carefully analyse evidence presented during the proceedings and demonstrate why the prosecution has failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He explained that written submissions often play a decisive role in assisting judges to evaluate evidence and apply legal principles before delivering judgment.
“The strength of the written submission, if it is based on evidence and law, can be good enough to secure an acquittal. Most lawyers will agree with me that that is how it works,” he said.
According to him, the defence’s responsibility is not merely to challenge witnesses during trial but also to marshal legal authorities, analyse testimony and highlight weaknesses in the prosecution’s case through comprehensive written arguments.
Background to the Case
The legal battle involving Chairman Wontumi has become one of Ghana’s most closely watched criminal proceedings due to both the political prominence of the accused and the broader national conversation surrounding illegal mining.
Wontumi and Akonta Mining have been standing trial over allegations that unauthorized mining activities were carried out on a concession at Samreboi in the Western Region without the approvals required under Ghana’s mining laws.
The Attorney-General alleges that individuals including Henry Okum and Michael Gyedu Ayisi were allowed to undertake mining operations on the concession without ministerial authorization. Chairman Wontumi has consistently denied all allegations and pleaded not guilty.
Throughout the trial, the defence challenged the prosecution’s evidence and argued that the state had failed to establish a direct link between Wontumi and the alleged unauthorized mining activities.
The proceedings have generated significant political interest because of Wontumi’s position as one of the NPP’s most influential regional leaders and his prominence within the party’s grassroots structure.
